( 1 ) COMMON questions of fact and law arise in the above petitions and therefore they are disposed of by the present common judgement.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint numbers 1677/2006,1558/05, 7210/05,6534/05, 6535/05, criminal case Nos, 4762/06, 42/06, 1707/06, 1216/06, 1136/06, 4656/06, 1689/06 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, court No. 15, Ahmedabad.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are Radiologists possessing requisite qualification and doing practice in Ahmedabad. The petitioners, for the purpose of diagnosis, use Sonography machine in their premises. The competent authority carried out inspection at the respective places and allegedly found certain irregularities. During the diagnosis the petitioners are required to fill up certain forms. The allegation in substance is that certain details were not provided in the performa. The concerned authority has, therefore, filed complaints against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of The Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid complaints on various grounds.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners submitted that as far as non-filling up of certain columns is concerned, the petitioners are not required to note the same as the petitioners have nothing to do with such particulars in view of the fact that ultimately the report which is indicated in the sonography report is just to be handed over to the patient concerned.

( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate further submitted that looking to the provisions of the Act, the petitioners have not committed any irregularity and the respondent authority even prima facie failed to establish that the pregnant woman or her relative or any other person has been communicated the sex of foetus or there has been either sex determination or sex selection by the petitioners at any point of time. He, therefore, submitted that the complaint do not disclose any offence being committed by the petitioners even on prima facie basis and therefore they are required to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the complaints are not maintainable inasmuch as the complaints have not been filed by the persons who are competent to file such complaints.

( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate for the respondent authorities opposed the petitions and submitted that the petitioners have failed to fill up the forms as required under the Act and therefore there is prima facie case against the petitioners and this Court may not interfere in the present petitions.

( 8 ) HAVING heard the rival contentions, the only question required to be considered is whether and the complaint is filed by the authorised person or not and the petitioners have prima facie committed any offence under the Act as alleged in the aforesaid complaints or not.

( 9 ) THE definition of "appropriate authority" Section 17 (2) reads as under:

" (2) The State Government shall 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 the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticidc. "

( 10 ) SECTION 28 of the Act pertains to cognizance of offences, which reads as under:

"28. Cognizance of offences - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this act except on a complaint made by -. [a] 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; or [b] a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Court. "

Therefore the complaint should be filed by Appropriate auth