Additional Chief Medical Officer Is Not An Appropriate Authority U/S 17 Of PCPNDT Act: Allahabad HC
Recently, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an Appropriate Authority under Section 17 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Additional Chief Medical Officer filed a complaint against the applicant and another, stating that he was authorized by the District Magistrate/ Appropriate Authority to file the complaint under Section 28 of the Act. The complaint alleged 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.
As per the Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Ishan Baghel 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.
As per the Counsel for the Respondent, AGA-I Anurag Verma the applicant had the opportunity to defend himself 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.
After going through the provisions of the Act and taking note of the notification issued by the Central govt 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 Court stated, “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.”
The Court concluded that 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 to be tried for the alleged offences.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Vinod Kumar Basis v. The State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:25839)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Amrendra Singh, Adv. Ishan Baghel, Adv. Pankaj Bala, Adv. Veena Vijayan Rajes
Respondent: AGA-I Anurag Verma, Adv. Ajay Krishna
