The Allahabad High Court while quashing proceedings in a case registered under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 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 Act.
Brief Facts:
The present application was filed seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner arising out of a case registered under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 after a complaint was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi against the applicant and another person alleging that the provisions of the 1994 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.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Additional Chief Medical Officer lacks the authority to file a complaint for any alleged violations of the provisions outlined in the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. It was further submitted that the State Government issued a Notification in November 2007 providing that the District Magistrate shall be the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(3)(a) read with 17(3)(b) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the applicant has the opportunity to defend him before the trial court and since the complaint makes out the commission of offences under the Act by the applicant, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent powers for quashing the proceedings of the complaint.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that when the Preconception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 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.
It was further stated by the court 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 and thus, 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 decision of the Court:
The court allowed the application and quashed the impugned order and entire proceedings under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Case Title: Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs State of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014
Advocate for the Petitioner: Amrendra Singh, Ishan Baghel, Pankaj Bala, Veena Vijayan Rajes
Advocate for the Respondent: Ajay Krishna
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
