Additional CMO not an appropriate authority: Allahabad HC quashes proceedings under PCPNDT Act

Prayagraj: Clarifying 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, the Allahabad High Court quashed the entire pending processings against an applicant and allowed his present application. 

The issue was taken to court after the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi filed a complaint against the applicant and one other stating that he was authorized by the District Magistrate/ Appropriate Authority to file the complaint under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act, 1994.

Challenging the move of the medical officer, the applicant in this case approached the high court alleging that the diagnostic centre owned by the co-accused individuals was violating the regulations stated in the mentioned act. The applicant was only performing Ultra Sonographic Examinations on patients at this facility.

Also read- Allahabad HC Relief To Medical Representative Who Was Terminated For Allegedly Lying About Doctor Visits

Considering the statements and the arguments, a Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed "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 the 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.

Further, the court said "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. Therefore, 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 order was given after the applicant sought quashing of an order dated 03.06.2014 as well as the entire proceeding PCPNDT Act, 1994 in an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Due to the fact that the complaint was filed by the chief medical officer and not the District Magistrate or the appropriate government, the court upheld the applicant's arguments and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

To view the official court order click on the link below: