The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing an application observed that the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the Government Order.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Dr Vinod Kumar Bassi.
By means of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of an order dated 03.06.2014 as well as entire proceeding of Case under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.
The aforesaid complaint was filed by Additional Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi against the applicant and one Raj Kishore Awasthi, stating that he had been authorized by the District Magistrate/ Appropriate Authority to file the complaint under Section 28 of Preconception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The complaint alleges that the provisions of the aforesaid act were being violated in a diagnostic centre owned by the co accused persons where the applicant was carrying out Ultra Sonographic Examination of patients.
In exercise of the aforesaid provision, the State Government has issued a Notification dated 30.11.2007 providing that the District Magistrate shall be the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(3)(a) read with 17(3)(b) of the act of 1994.
The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that as the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not the appropriate authority, he could not have filed a complaint for any alleged violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the complaint which had not been filed by the appropriate authority.
Opposing the submissions, the AGA-I has submitted that the applicant has the opportunity to defend him before the trial court and since the complaint makes out commission of offences under the Act by the applicant, it is not a fit case where the Court should exercise its inherent powers for quashing the proceedings of the complaint.
“When the Act of 1994 clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority, the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority. There can be no dispute against the fact that the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Government Order. Therefore, as the complaint itself was incompetent, the trial court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint and to summon the applicant for being tried for the alleged offences”, the Court observed while allowing the application.
The Court quashed the order dated 03.06.2014 as well as entire proceeding of Case under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Act, 1994, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.