Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Sahoo and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (16 Jul 2019)

Cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by Appropriate Authority concerned

MANU/SC/0927/2019

Civil

Present appeal arises out of judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has quashed the summoning order issued against the Respondents and also the complaint filed against them under Sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC and PNDT Act)

The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the Respondents on the ground that authorisation had not been granted by the District Magistrate-District Appropriate Authority, for filing the complaint; but the inspection was conducted. The High Court held that on the date of inspection conducted by the Tehsildar, he had no authority to conduct the inspection.

As per Section 28(1)(a) of the PC and PNDT Act, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned. As per Office Memorandum of the Health and Family Welfare Department dated 27th July, 2007, the District Magistrate of each District is appointed as "District Appropriate Authority" for the each District under the PC and PNDT Act. As per the said Office Memorandum, the District Magistrate-District Appropriate Authority may nominate the Executive Magistrate of the District as his/her nominee to assist him/her in monitoring the implementation of the PC and PNDT Act, as deemed necessary.

Additionally, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sub-Collector) of each Sub-Division is also appointed as an "Appropriate Authority" for the Sub-District/Sub-Division for strict implementation of the provisions under this Act. This is by virtue of the above Office Memorandum, the Executive Magistrate-Tehsildar has been nominated to assist the District Appropriate Authority-District Magistrate in monitoring the implementation of PC and PNDT Act. In the light of the above Office Memorandum, it cannot be said that the inspection conducted is without authority/authorisation.

The High Court did not properly appreciate the Office Memorandum and erred in quashing the proceedings initiated against the Respondents and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and present appeal is allowed. Complaint Petition shall stand restored to the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Tags : COGNIZANCE   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved