Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the Orissa High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings against the respondents under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC and PNDT Act). The case arose from a joint inspection conducted on 28 May 2014 at Shri Jagannath Hospital, Dhenkanal, by a State and District team including the Tehsildar. The inspection revealed violations of Sections 3(2), 5, and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act, punishable under Sections 23 and 25. The ultrasound machine was seized, and the clinic's registration was suspended. A complaint was filed under Section 28(2) of the Act, and the Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons. The respondents filed a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, arguing that the Tehsildar lacked authorisation to conduct the inspection and that the District Magistrate could not delegate authority under the Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the inspection was without authority. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had not properly appreciated the Office Memorandum dated 27 July 2007, which appoints the District Magistrate as the District Appropriate Authority and permits nomination of Executive Magistrates to assist in monitoring. Additionally, the complaint referred to Order No.388 dated 27 May 2014 authorising the Tehsildar to inspect, but this was not considered by the High Court as it was not mentioned in the counter affidavit. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the complaint to the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, and directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - High Court quashed complaint under PC and PNDT Act holding inspection by Tehsildar was without authority - Supreme Court set aside order, noting that Order No.388 dated 27.05.2014 authorising inspection was mentioned in complaint but not considered by High Court - Held that High Court erred in quashing proceedings without examining the authorisation order (Paras 7-11). B) Medical Law - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Sections 23, 25, 28 - Cognizance of Offences - Complaint filed by authorised officer under Section 28(2) - Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2007 appoints District Magistrate as District Appropriate Authority and permits nomination of Executive Magistrate to assist in monitoring - Held that Tehsildar's inspection cannot be said to be without authority in light of the Office Memorandum (Paras 7-8). C) Evidence - Authorisation Order - Consideration by Court - Order No.388 dated 27.05.2014 authorising Tehsildar to inspect was referred to in complaint but not mentioned in counter affidavit - Supreme Court declined to go into merits, leaving it to Trial Court to examine correctness of the order - Held that High Court should have considered the order before quashing proceedings (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under the PC and PNDT Act on the ground that the inspection conducted by the Tehsildar was without proper authorisation
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 29.06.2017, and restored Complaint Petition No.2(C) C.C. Case No.43 of 2014 to the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, to proceed in accordance with law. No opinion expressed on merits.
Law Points
- Inspection by Tehsildar under PC and PNDT Act is valid if authorised by District Appropriate Authority
- Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2007 permits nomination of Executive Magistrate to assist in monitoring
- High Court cannot quash proceedings without considering all relevant documents
