Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Ravindra Kashinath Kulkarni, a medical practitioner, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking to quash a complaint filed against him by the Appropriate Authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (the Act) and the Rules thereunder. The complaint alleged violations of the Act. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the Appropriate Authority, Dr. R.K. Savakare, had not obtained valid sanction under Section 28 of the Act, which requires that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or a person authorized by it, and such authorization must be by notification in the Official Gazette. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed without such sanction and therefore was not maintainable. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and the Appropriate Authority, opposed the petition, contending that the complaint was validly filed. The court analyzed Section 28 of the Act and relevant rules, noting that the provision is mandatory and that the authorization of the Appropriate Authority must be by notification in the Official Gazette. The court found that the complaint did not disclose any such notification or valid sanction. Consequently, the court held that the complaint was not maintainable and quashed the same. The court allowed the petition and set aside the complaint.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 28 of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The court examined whether the complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority was maintainable without prior sanction under Section 28 of the Act. The court held that Section 28 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or a person authorized by it, and such authorization must be by notification in the Official Gazette. In the absence of such notification, the complaint is not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is maintainable in the absence of valid sanction under Section 28 of the Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, holding that the complaint was not maintainable due to lack of valid sanction under Section 28 of the Act.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 28 of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act
- 1994 is mandatory for filing complaint
- Authorization of Appropriate Authority must be by notification in Official Gazette
- Complaint filed without valid sanction is not maintainable
