PCPNDT ACT;When liability can not be fixed on Doctor for default?
These allegations have been taken into consideration by
discharge.
Clearly, for the alleged non-maintenance of the record and
the Magistrate, against the applicants, for rejecting their application for
contravention of the Rules, the applicants cannot be held responsible. At
the cost of repetition, it may be observed that, the complaint is silent as to
on what basis this responsibility is cast upon the applicants or any of them.
Moreover, a perusal of the complaint itself indicates that, actually the
allegations are levelled only against the accused no.1.
There are
averments in the complaint, wherein there is reference simpliciter to
'accused', without qualifying the reference by any accused number. The
complaint speaks of 'hospital of the accused' where 'he' is running 'his'
Sonography Centre, etc. The complaint also speaks of the complainant
and his team having inquired with the accused that, 'he' is conducting
ultrasound sonography. Thus, the use of singular expression makes it clear
that, the allegation is only against Dr. Jayesh Shinde, who has now been
referred as the accused no.1 in the complaint.
Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde,
Criminal Application No. 3044 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
V
1. Appropriate Authority,
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 4TH DECEMBER 2013
Citation; 2014 ALLMR (cri) 681
