Crl. Misc. No. M-17756 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17756 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.09.2011 Deepak Gupta ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG Haryana Mr. Jaiveer S. Chandail, Advocate MAHESH GROVER, J. Mr. Jaiveer S. Chandail, Advocate states that he wants to adopt the reply filed by learned counsel for the respondent-State. He is allowed to do so. He further states that he has been appointed as counsel to represent the appropriate authority. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint case No. 32-2 dated 30.3.2011 preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petitioner is facing accusation that he violated the terms of the Act by conducting ultrasonography test. According to the complaint the license of the petitioner expired on 5.12.2010 whereas he has conducted tests on 8.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 in complete violation of provisions of the Act. The raid Crl. Misc. No. M-17756 of 2011(O&M) 2 was conducted on the premises of the petitioner on 29.12.2010 yielding 'F' forms indicating that the petitioner had been indulging in unauthorised sex determination of the foetus. The petitioner also faces allegations that the sign board which had been set up in and in front of the clinic was not in accordance with the rules and the further allegations against the petitioner are regarding running of his centre without proper adherence to the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Section 17(3) of the Act, the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to file complaint as the said Section contemplates multi member committee which has not been constituted and the complaint has been filed by the Civil Surgeon. He further contends that all the allegations against the petitioner are false as he had already applied for revalidation of his license. The facts as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the contentions raised before this Court are refuted by learned counsel for the respondent who states that the petitioner's license had expired on 5.12.2010 whereas an application for revalidation had been moved on 17.3.2011 and this fact has not been revealed by the petitioner in his petition rather an attempt has been made to project that the application for renewal had been made within a specified time. Apart from this it has been stated that the Chief Medical Officer was duly authorised to file the complaint and that he is the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(2) of the Act. I have considered the arguments raised before this Court and find that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are baseless. Section 17(2) of the Act clearly empowers Crl. Misc. No. M-17756 of 2011(O&M) 3 the State Government to appoint by notification in the official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purpose of this Act having regard to intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination which leads to female foeticide. Section 17(3) of the Act lays down that there can be multi member committee if the Appropriate Authority is for whole of the State or the Union Territory. Notification has been duly issued by the State of Haryana indicating that on 24.10.1997 an appointment had been made in respect of Appropriate Authorities for the whole of the State of Haryana vide Haryana Government, Health Department, Notification No. 1/18/88-2HB-II-97 dated the 24th October, 1997 and due to inadvertence the said notification could not be published but subsequent notification has been issued on 14.9.2009 validating all the actions taken by the Appropriate Authority appointed vide notification dated 24.10.1997 and also saying that all the actions taken by such appropriate authorities shall be deemed to have been done or taken and will not be questioned or invalidated by the Court on this ground. The petitioner who has raised a plea that there was no notification in favour of the respondent authorising him to initiate the complaint has not placed any material on record from where it can be inferred that the contents of the reply and the notification attached as Annexure R-1 are incorrect so as to appreciate the plea which has been raised by the petitioner. The reply was to the knowledge of petitioner and it was his duty to file counter affidavit and to bring sufficient material on record. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the Court is not inclined to accept prayer of the petitioner and besides this plea can be raised by the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-17756 of 2011(O&M) 4 before learned trial Court. If the proceedings have been initiated by person who is not competent or authorised by law, the plea if raised can be appreciated by learned trial Court. Apart from this, it is evident from the facts of the case that the petitioner had been running his Centre without authorisation as it has not been disputed by the petitioner that his license had expired on 5.12.2010 whereas raid was conducted on 29.12.2010 yielding 'F' Forms and sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner was carrying out the activities unauthorisedly and in contravention of the provisions of law. Further still since the allegation against the petitioner are all intertwined and integrated, incapable of being separated the complaint cannot be quashed on a partial appreciation of the matter even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is held to be without merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 22.09.2011 JUDGE reena