Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision applications filed by Dr. Gopal Battalwar (accused No.2) and Noorjahan Begum (accused No.3) challenging the common order dated January 31, 2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2013, whereby charges were framed against them under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The applicants were accused of conducting and undergoing a sonography test for sex determination. The complaint was lodged by Dr. Uttam Ingale, the Resident Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Nanded, who claimed to be authorized to file the complaint. The applicants contended that the complaint was not filed by an authorized person under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act and that no sanction under Section 27 of the Act was obtained. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges despite these objections. The High Court examined the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and held that under Section 28, only an authorized person or officer can file a complaint, and Dr. Uttam Ingale was not so authorized. Further, under Section 27, prior sanction of the appropriate authority or State Government is mandatory for prosecution. The court found that the complaint was not maintainable and the cognizance taken was illegal. The High Court allowed both revision applications, quashed the order framing charges, and discharged the applicants. The court also directed that the applicants be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision - Maintainability - Revision against order framing charge is maintainable if the order is perverse, without jurisdiction, or suffers from legal infirmity - Held that the order framing charge without valid complaint and sanction is illegal and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-6). B) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 27 - Sanction - Mandatory requirement - Prosecution under the Act requires prior sanction of the appropriate authority or the State Government - Held that absence of sanction renders the prosecution invalid (Paras 7-8). C) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 28 - Complaint - Who can file - Only an authorized person or officer can file a complaint under the Act - Held that a complaint filed by a Medical Officer not authorized under the Act is not maintainable (Paras 9-10). D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 190 - Cognizance - Validity - Cognizance taken on a complaint not filed by an authorized person is illegal and without jurisdiction - Held that the learned Sessions Judge erred in taking cognizance and framing charges (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was justified in framing charges against the applicants under the PCPNDT Act without a valid complaint and sanction as required under the Act.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision applications are allowed. The common order dated January 31, 2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded below Exhs.9 and 14 in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. The applicants are discharged from the said case. They be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 27 of PCPNDT Act is mandatory
- Complaint by unauthorized person is not maintainable
- Cognizance without valid complaint is illegal
- Revision against framing of charge is maintainable if order is perverse or without jurisdiction
