A. M. Badar, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition by the original accused in Regular Criminal Case No.318 of 2011, decided on 28th February, 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karmala, District Solapur. The learned trial Court, by this judgment and order, was pleased to convict the revision petitioner/accused of offences punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as PCPNDT Act for the sake of brevity) for contravention of Sections 5(2) and 6, for contravention of Section 4(3) read with Rules 9(4), 10(1-A) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of misuse) Amendment Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as PNDT Rules for the sake of brevity), for contravention of Rule 9(8) of PNDT Rules, for contravention of Section 5 of PCPNDT Act read with Rule 10 of PNDT Rules and for contravention of Rule 19(4), Rule 17(1) and Rule 17(2) of PNDT Rules. For contravention of Sections 5(2) and 6 of PCPNDT Act, for contravention of Section 4(3) of PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9(4), 10(1-A) of PNDT Rules as well as for contravention of Section 5 of PCPNDT Act read with Rule 10 of PNDT Rules, the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 months, on each count. For contravention of Rule 9(8) of PNDT Rules punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 month. For contravention of Rule 19(4), Rule 17(1) and 17(2) of PNDT Rules punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, the revision petitioner/accused, on each count, is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months apart from payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 month. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court, by this impugned judgment and order.
(2.) The revision petitioner/accused carried this judgment of conviction and consequent sentence imposed on her in Criminal Appeal bearing No.57 of 2014, which ultimately came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi, by the judgment and order, dated 25th November, 2015. That is how, the revision petitioner/accused is invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court for challenging her conviction and resultant sentence for alleged contravention of the provisions of PCPNDT Act as well as PNDT Rules framed thereunder.
(3.) The revision petition came up for hearing of Criminal Application No. 66 of 2016 whereby the revision petitioner/ accused has prayed for suspension of conviction recorded against her by the Courts below. Shri Kapadnis, the learned APP appearing for the respondents insisted that instead of deciding the application for suspension of sentence, the revision petition itself should be heard finally. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner/accused agreed for adopting this course of action. That is how, the revision petition was heard finally as record and proceedings were already called and available with this Court.;