In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the case of State of Orissa against XYZ Clinic regarding the PC and PNDT Act proceedings. The High Court had earlier quashed the summons issued to the clinic due to lack of proper authorization. However, in a recent judgement, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, setting the stage for further legal proceedings. This case raises critical questions about the enforcement of healthcare laws and regulatory protocols.
Facts
- The High Court quashed the proceedings against the respondents as not sustainable in law.
- The Trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3(2), 5, 29, 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act and issued summons to the respondents.
- The respondents filed a quash petition before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the summons on grounds of unauthorized inspection and lack of authority delegation.
- High Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the respondents due to lack of authorization by the District Magistrate-District Appropriate Authority for filing the complaint before the inspection was conducted.
- The High Court pointed out that the Tehsildar had no authority to conduct the inspection on the date it took place.
- The judgment and order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, in CRLMC No.4845 of 2014 quashed the summoning order and complaint against the respondents under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act.
- The District Magistrate-District Appropriate Authority is only allowed to nominate the Executive Magistrate of the District to assist in monitoring and implementation of the PC and PNDT Act, as per the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2007.
- A complaint was filed against the accused under Section 28(2) of the PC and PNDT Act.
- The respondents were found to have violated sections 3(2), 5 and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act.
- The violation is punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act.
- The registration of the ultrasound clinic of the respondents was suspended by the Collector’s order dated 18.06.2014.
- The authorized officer of the Collector-cum-District Appropriate Authority seized the ultrasound machine and other equipments from the clinic for the violations of the PC and PNDT Act and Rules.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Ms. Anindita Pujari, counsel for the appellant-State, highlighted Order No.388 dated 27.05.2014 authorizing Tehsildar to inspect the clinic of the respondents and take legal action.
- Order No.388 was mentioned in the complaint filed before the Magistrate’s Court.
- Mr. Manish Mohan, representing the respondents, pointed out that Order No.388 was not mentioned in the counter filed by the Chief District Medical Officer before the High Court.
- The authorization for inspection on 28.05.2014 by the Tehsildar was not considered by the High Court during the proceedings.
- The correctness of the Order dated 27.05.2014 was questioned by Mr. Manish Mohan.
- The said order was not shown to the respondents during the inspection.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- No court can take cognizance of an offense under the PC and PNDT Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned.
- The District Magistrate of each District is appointed as the ‘District Appropriate Authority’ for that District under the PC and PNDT Act.
- The District Magistrate can nominate the Executive Magistrate of the District as their nominee to assist in monitoring the implementation of the PC and PNDT Act.
- Cognizance can only be taken on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned, as per Section 28(1)(a) of the PC and PNDT Act.
- Order dated 27.05.2014 mentioned in the complaint itself
- Sub-Divisional Magistrate appointed as ‘Appropriate Authority’ for strict implementation of the provisions under the Act
- Executive Magistrate-Tehsildar nominated to assist the District Appropriate Authority in monitoring the implementation of PC and PNDT Act
- Inspection conducted on 28.05.2014 deemed to be authorized in light of the Office Memorandum
- The Trial Court has the authority to examine the correctness of Order No.388 dated 27.05.2014
- The High Court made an error in quashing the proceedings initiated against the respondents based on the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2007
- The impugned order cannot be sustained as it did not properly consider the Office Memorandum
- The Court refrains from delving into the merits of the arguments presented by the parties
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 29.06.2017 in CRLMC NO.4845 of 2014 is set aside.
- The appeal is allowed.
- Complaint Petition NO.2(C) C.C. Case No.43 of 2014 is restored to the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal.
- The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Case Title: STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MAMATA SAHOO
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001055-001055 / 2019
