P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 160/2015 whereby while rejecting the revision, the sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Special Railway Magistrate Raipur ordering for registration of a complaint against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCPNDT Act'). The facts in brief is that the Deputy Collector, Raipur, on 04.03.2015 filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act alleging that she had accompanied NINC Team who had come from Delhi for inspecting the Sonography Centers at Raipur. In the course on 22.12.2014, Bombay Diagnostic centre belonging to the petitioner was inspected and in the course of inspection, the team found the petitioners to have violated the provisions of Section 4(3)(v) of the PCPNDT Act to the extent that the records available at the centre were not in the proper format as is required under the Act and the records also did not bear the signatures of the Doctor and further the records were also incomplete, therefore, bringing the case to be one of having committed violation of provisions of Section 4(3)(v) read with Rules 9(4) and 10(1)A of the PCPNDT Act.

2. On receipt of the said complaint, the Magistrate vide order dated 04.03.2015 ordered for registration of the complaint and have ordered for issuance of notice to the petitioner seeking her presence before the court.

3. This order of registration of the complaint was put to challenge in criminal revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. Before the revisional court where it was specifically contended by the petitioner regarding the competency of the Deputy Collector in filing the complaint alleging that under the PCPNDT Act, the Deputy Collector is not the authorized officer as is required under Section 28 of the Act for filing of complaint.

4. During the course of hearing before the revisional court, the petitioner had cited and relied upon the judgment of Chennai High Court in case of Dr. (Koshy, J.) Manimegalai v. State 2014(4) Crimes 483, however, the revisional court after considering the submissions put forth by the petitioner, vide order impugned dated 25.06.2015 rejected the revision petition holding it to be non maintainable.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the magistrate court as well as the revisional court have prima-facie not considered the aspect whether the person who lodged the complaint was competent enough under the PCPNDT Act to file a complaint or not. He submits that under the PCPNDT Act it is the specific authorized officer who can file the complaint before the appropriate court and in the instant case the person who has lodged the complaint is not the authorized officer to file complaint nor is there any sort of notification adduced by the complainant before the court below to show that he is infact the person who has been authorized under the PCPNDT Act in the State of Chhattisgarh to file the complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has preferred the present petition only assailing the competency of the authority who has filed the complaint and since the inception of complaint itself was by a person who is not competent under the PCPNDT Act, therefore, the order for registration of the complaint itself was bad in law which the learned magistrate did not notice at the time of ordering for registration of the complaint. The revisional court has also not considered this aspect of the matter in its proper perspective and has also not considered the objection raised by the petitioner while passing the impugned order in a mechanical manner holding the petition under Section 399 read with section 377 C