While dismissing a petition of a doctor challenging the rejection of her discharge application in a case registered under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, the Allahabad High Court has held that the authorisation done by the District Magistrate was valid and the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, was empowered to file the complaint.

The High Court was considering an application filed by the applicant seeking the setting aside of an order passed under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, rejecting the application for discharge preferred by her and further the order dismissing her revision.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manvinder Singh Gill (2015), the Single Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh stated, “The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the verdict that under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act 1994, any officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority notified under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1994 would also be entitled to initiate action under the Act, 1994. Thus, the authorization done by the District Magistrate is valid and the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow was empowered to file the complaint and there is no illegality in it.”

Advocate Dhirendra Singh Panwar represented the Applicant, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

A complaint was filed by the second opposite party, the then Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, under Section 23 of the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance and a summons was issued against the applicant. The applicant surrendered and was enlarged on bail. The applicant made an application for discharge, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court.

Arguments

It was the applicant’s case that she is an M.B.B.S. doctor and not the owner of the Maternity and Surgical Centre in question. She claimed that she was practising as a Gynecologist at the time of the alleged incident of search and seizure, and the entire complaint was based on hearsay evidence. It was submitted that Dr A.K. Chaudhary (second opposite party), the then Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, was not the appropriate authority within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act, 1994, and he had no legal authority to file the present complaint.

Reasoning

Referring to its judgment in Dr. Brij Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2024), the High Court noted that the aforesaid judgment indicated that any person authorised by the Appropriate Authority is empowered to file a complaint before the Magistrate. The Bench held that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, was empowered to file the complaint.

One of the arguments raised by the applicant was that while taking action under Section 30, it is imperative upon the District Magistrate to record reasons, but he had passed the order without recording any reasons. On this aspect, the Bench noted that the District Magistrate’s order indicated that the same was issued under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1996, which provides facilities for inspection at any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, etc., and Rule 11 further provides that the Appropriate Authority may authorise any other person to act on behalf. The Bench thus found no illegality in the order of authorisation.

“It is further to be noted that as per Clause 3 of the Notification dated 30.11.2017, District Magistrate may nominate an executive magistrate of the district as his/her nominee to assist him/her in monitoring the implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. He has been empowered under empowered under Clause (a) read with Clause (b) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 17 of the Act, 1994”, it added.

Considering that the applicant had challenged the order rejecting the application for discharge, the Bench stated, “At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon a mini-trial or undertake an evaluation of the evidentiary material on record. The contention that the complaint is founded on hearsay evidence is not tenable in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to assessing the probative value of evidence, which is a matter to be determined during trial upon the parties leading evidence in accordance with law.”

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh v. The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another ( Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:13182)

Click here to read/download Order







Allahabad High CourtJustice Brij Raj Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.