Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pc-pndt act in Gagandeep vs District Appropriate Authority & Ors on 23 March, 2015Matching Fragments
This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc.No.M-27591 of 2013 (Gagandeep v. District Appropriate Authority-cum-CMO, Ambala and others) and Crl. Misc.No.M-5345 of 2014 (Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana).
Petitioners in both the above noted cases are accused in complaint No.47 of 2012, under Sections 3/4/5/6/18/23 of the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as the 'PC-PNDT Act'). They seek quashing of the complaint as well as summoning order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala whereby they have been summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Section 23 of the PC-PNDT Act for violation of provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 18 of the PC-PNDT Act.
On the basis of the incriminating evidence recovered and violation of the provisions of Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 and 23 of the PC-PNDT Act being revealed, the present complaint was filed. FIR No.143 dated 01.07.2012 was also lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contend that the present complaint itself is not maintainable having been filed by a person not authorised to do so under the PC-PNDT Act. While referring to Section 28 of the PC-PNDT Act, it is submitted that it is only the appropriate authority which is competent to file the complaint. It is urged that in the present case, complaint has been filed by Dr. Sangeeta Goyal. As per Section 17(3) of the PC-PNDT Act, an appropriate authority has to be a Committee consisting of three members. State Government has to appoint one or more appropriate authority/ authorities for whole or part of the State for the purposes of PC-PNDT Act.
Sh. H.C.Arora while referring to decision dated 18.09.2013 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.21565 of 2011 (Help Welfare Group Society v. The State of Haryana and others) contends that an appropriate authority necessarily has to be a three member body to ensure compliance of Section 17 (5) of the PC-PNDT Act. State of Haryana had designated Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority vide notification dated 25.08.2003. This Court has held that a multi-member body of three members would far better serve the ends rather than the Civil Surgeon alone being the appropriate authority.
It is submitted that in view of this decision all actions taken under the previous notification have to be set at naught. Proceedings cannot continue against the petitioners on this ground alone.
Sh.Hemen Aggarwal while referring to notification dated 14.09.2009 submits that notification dated 24.10.1997 itself was not published in the official gazette. Vide notification dated 24.10.1997, Civil Surgeon was nominated to be the Appropriate Authority and an Advisory Committee was constituted to assist or advise the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 17 of the PC-PNDT Act, which provides that the appropriate authority can be appointed by the State Government only by notification in the official gazette, it has to be held that the notification dated 24.10.1997 itself is a nullity not having been published in the official gazette and all actions taken thereunder are illegal, null and void.