Complaint against sex selection can be made only by 'Appropriate Authority' under PCPNDT Act: Karnataka High Court

A complaint regarding sex-selection of foetus under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act [PCPNDT Act/ Act] can be made only by the 'appropriate authority' under the Act, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled [Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and Anr vs State of Karnataka]..Justice M Nagaprasanna, therefore, set aside the proceedings against a hospital and a doctor in Gokak on the ground that the Taluka Health Officer, who had registered the complaint in question, was not the appropriate authority under the Act."Section 28 mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government as the case would be. Therefore, registration of a complaint is required to be done only from the hands of an appropriate authority. Thus, the complaint registered by the respondent Taluka Health Officer is without doubt without jurisdiction" the single-judge held. .The petitioner, Dr Padma Nitin Jadhav, owns and runs the Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav Memorial Hospital at Gokak. The Taluka Health Officer visited the hospital and conducted an inspection, upon which they registered a complaint under Section 28 (cognizance of offences) of the PCPNDT Act, on the allegation that the hospital had equipment for the purpose of detecting the sex of the foetus, and had not maintained records as required under the PCPNDT Act. The equipment and documents were seized from the hospital. After the registration of the complaint, the jurisdictional Magistrate recorded statements and took cognisance of the offence. .The petitioner argued that the respondent, the Taluka Health Officer, is not the authority empowered under the Act to inspect or register a complaint against the petitioners. Any act of the respondent in registration of the complaint is without jurisdiction and null in law, it was submitted. .The High Court Government Pleader contended that there is a notification issued by the Government on October 15, 2011, empowering the respondent to inspect clinics and register complaints, and the registration of the complaint was, therefore, in accordance with the law. .The Court noted that Section 17 (Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee) of the PCPNDT Act empowers the Central and State governments to appoint an 'appropriate authority' by notification in the official gazette. Once the appropriate authority is appointed, they become empowered to act under the PCPNDT Act, and the issue of a notification by either the State or the Central government is imperative. .The Karnataka State government had issued a notification appointing the Assistant Commissioner as the appropriate authority. Hence, only they are the 'appropriate authority' appointed under the Act, the Court ruled.Further, Section 28 mandates that the Court cannot take cognisance of an offence under the Act unless the complaint is made by the appropriate authority, or an officer authorized by the Central or State governments, the Judge added. .Thus observing that the complaint registered by the respondent, the Taluka Health Officer, was without jurisdiction or authority of law, the Court said that the order of the Magistrate taking cognisance of the complaint was erroneous..Advocate Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar represented the petitioner. High Court Government Pleader Ramesh Chigari appeared for the State. .[Read Order]