MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Offence Converted from Murder to Culpable Homicide: Apex Court Alters Conviction Under IPCOffence Converted from Murder to Culpable Homicide: Apex Court Alters Conviction Under IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, has underscored the importance of statutory compliance in the filing of complaints under the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The court allowed an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash an order and the proceedings against Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi in a case alleging violation of the said Act.

The legal crux of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of Sections 3, 17, 23, and 28 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. The primary question was whether the Additional Chief Medical Officer, who initiated the complaint, qualified as the ‘appropriate authority’ as prescribed under the Act.

Dr. Bassi was accused of violating the provisions of the Act in his diagnostic centre. The complaint was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi. The applicant challenged the competency of the officer to file such a complaint, stating that as per the Act, only a complaint made by the ‘appropriate authority’ is cognizable.

Incompetence of Complainant: The court observed that the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not the ‘appropriate authority’ as defined under the Act. This designation, according to a government notification, lies with the District Magistrate.

Jurisdictional Competence: Analyzing Section 28, the court emphasized that courts can only take cognizance of offences under the Act on a complaint made by the designated appropriate authority. Since the Additional Chief Medical Officer did not fit this criterion, the complaint was deemed incompetent.

Statutory Compliance: The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedural and substantive stipulations of the Act. The court stressed that legal actions under such specialized legislation must strictly follow statutory mandates.

Decision: In light of these observations, the Allahabad High Court allowed the application, quashing both the order dated 03.06.2014 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 4495 of 2011. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that legal proceedings must align with the precise requirements of the relevant legislation.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi Vs. The State Of U.P And Anr.

Latest Legal News