Additional Chief Medical Officer Has No Authority To File A Complaint For An Offence Committed Under PCPNDT Act: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that an Additional Chief Medical Officer has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short ‘PCPNDT Act’).
The Lucknow Bench of the Court was deciding an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by which the accused sought quashing of an order and proceedings under PCPNDT Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “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.”
Advocate Ishan Baghel appeared for the applicant while AGA-I Anurag Verma appeared for the opposite parties.
Brief Facts -
The applicant/accused sought quashing of an order as well as entire proceedings under Sections 3 and 23 of the PCPNDT Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. A complaint was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer against the applicant and another person, stating that he was authorised by the District Magistrate/Appropriate Authority to file the complaint under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act.
The aforesaid complaint alleged that the provisions of PCPNDT Act were violated in a diagnostic centre owned by the co-accused persons where the applicant was carrying out Ultra Sonographic Examination of patients.
The High Court in the above context said, “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 learned 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.”
The Court noted that opposing the submissions, the AGA-I 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.
“… 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”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicant.
Cause Title- Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi v. The State of U.P. And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:25839)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Ishan Baghel, Amrendra Singh, Pankaj Bala, and Veena Vijayan Rajes.
Opposite Parties: AGA-I Anurag Verma and Advocate Ajay Krishna.
