The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 may be filed by an officer duly authorized by the Appropriate Authority, even if not directly appointed by the State or Central Government. This ruling resolves a long-standing ambiguity regarding the scope of delegation under Section 28(1)(a) and reinforces the principle that statutory authority may be lawfully delegated within the framework of the Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dr. Gayatri Singh, a registered gynecologist, faced criminal proceedings under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act) following a search and seizure operation at the Maa Chandrika Devi Maternity and Surgical Center in Lucknow on 13.11.2008. The complaint was filed by Dr. A.K. Chaudhary, Additional Chief Medical Officer (ACMO), Lucknow, who was not the Appropriate Authority but had been authorized by the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings.
Procedural History
- 18.11.2008: Complaint filed by Dr. A.K. Chaudhary before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
- 20.11.2008: Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.
- 14.09.2010: Applicant surrendered and was granted bail.
- 13.06.2024: Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the applicant’s application for discharge.
- 18.11.2025: Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, dismissed the revision petition filed by the applicant.
- 08.02.2026: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of proceedings.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order on two grounds: (1) the complaint was not filed by the Appropriate Authority as mandated under Section 28(1)(a), and (2) the District Magistrate failed to record reasons for authorizing the ACMO under Section 30 and Rule 11 of the Rules, 1996.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 28(1)(a) of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 permits a complaint to be filed by an officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority, even if such officer is not directly appointed by the Central or State Government, and whether the absence of recorded reasons in the authorization order vitiates the proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant contended that only the Appropriate Authority, as defined under Section 17(3), may file a complaint under Section 28(1)(a). He argued that the Additional Chief Medical Officer was not an officer authorized by the Central or State Government, and the District Magistrate’s authorization was invalid because: (i) Section 30(1) requires the Appropriate Authority to record reasons before authorizing an officer, and (ii) the District Magistrate’s notification dated 30.11.1997 only empowered executive magistrates, not medical officers, to assist in monitoring. Reliance was placed on Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi v. State of U.P. to argue that the complaint was legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Section 28(1)(a) explicitly permits complaints by any officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority, and the District Magistrate’s order dated 18.08.2008 constituted valid delegation. It was further argued that Section 30 and Rule 11 of the Rules, 1996, empowered the Appropriate Authority to authorize officers for inspection and seizure, and the absence of reasons in the authorization order was not fatal at the pre-trial stage. The State relied on Manvinder Singh Gill v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, and Dr. Brij Pal Singh v. State of U.P. to establish that delegation to medical officers is lawful and well-settled.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Section 28(1)(a), which permits complaints by "the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority." The Court emphasized that the phrase "or the Appropriate Authority" at the end of the clause is not redundant but clarifies that the Appropriate Authority itself may delegate its power to file complaints.
"The power to delegate and authorise an officer to make a complaint is clearly conferred upon all the three authorities under the provisions of section 28, and therefore, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manvinder Singh Gill v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which explicitly held that an officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority is fully competent to file a complaint, irrespective of whether the officer is a government official or a medical officer. The Gujarat High Court’s Full Bench ruling in Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat was also affirmed, which interpreted the dual use of "Appropriate Authority" in Section 28(1)(a) as intentional to include delegated authority.
The Court rejected the argument that reasons must be recorded under Section 30 for authorization. It clarified that Section 30 pertains to powers of search and seizure, not to the filing of complaints. The authorization dated 18.08.2008 was issued under Section 28(1)(a), not Section 30, and therefore, no statutory requirement for reasons applied. Further, the order dated 13.11.2008 was issued under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1996, which permits inspection and does not require reasons to be recorded.
The Court also held that at the stage of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, it cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of evidence. The allegation that the complaint was based on hearsay is a matter for trial, not for quashing.
The Verdict
The applicant’s petition was dismissed. The Court held that Section 28(1)(a) of the PC & PNDT Act permits complaints to be filed by officers authorized by the Appropriate Authority, and the District Magistrate’s delegation to the Additional Chief Medical Officer was valid. The absence of recorded reasons in the authorization order does not invalidate the complaint at the pre-trial stage.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Authorized Officers May Initiate Prosecution Without Direct Appointment
- Practitioners must now recognize that any officer delegated by the Appropriate Authority - including medical officers, district health officials, or even non-police personnel - may file a complaint under the PC & PNDT Act.
- Challenges to the standing of complainants based on their official designation are no longer tenable if valid delegation exists.
- Defense counsel should focus on the validity of the delegation order, not the rank or department of the complainant.
Delegation Does Not Require Formal Reasons to Be Recorded
- The Court has clarified that Section 30 and Rule 11 govern inspection powers, not complaint-filing authority.
- No statutory mandate exists to record reasons when delegating complaint-filing power under Section 28(1)(a).
- Petitioners seeking quashing on grounds of "non-recorded reasons" will fail unless the delegation itself is ultra vires or mala fide.
Pre-Trial Challenges to Evidence Are Not Permissible Under Section 482
- Allegations of hearsay, fabricated evidence, or weak testimony cannot be grounds for quashing at the cognizance stage.
- Courts will not evaluate evidentiary sufficiency until trial; such issues are reserved for cross-examination and final adjudication.
- Defense strategy must shift from challenging the complaint’s foundation to preparing for trial on evidentiary grounds.
