Additional Chief Medical Officer Has No Authority To File A Complaint For Any Offence Under PCPNDT Act: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that an 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.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held thus while perusing the mandate of Sections 28 and Section 17 (1) & (2) of the 1994 Act. For context, Section 28 bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority. Section 17 provides for the manner of appointment of an 'appropriate authority'.

"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 Page 3 of 4 committed under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Government Order," the Court remarked.

The single judge was essentially dealing with a plea filed by a doctor seeking the quashing of a case under Sections 3/23 of the 1994 Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.

A complaint in the case 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.

The applicant argued that the Additional Chief Medical Officer lacks the authority to file a complaint for any alleged violations of the provisions outlined in the 1994 Act. Therefore, the trial court should not have taken cognizance of a complaint that wasn't filed by the proper authority.

It was also 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 act of 1994.

In view of this submission, the Court, after examining Section 17 of the Act as well as the state government's notification of 2007, concluded that an Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and hence, he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the 1994 Act.

Consequently, finding that the complaint itself was incompetent, the HC noted that 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 application was allowed and the entire case proceedings were quashed.

Case title - Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193

Click Here To Read/Download Order