M.N. Bhandari, J.

By these criminal misc. petitions, a challenge is made to the complaint and subsequent orders of cognizance of the offence under Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagonistic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short "the Act of 1994").

2. A criminal complaint was filed against the petitioners apart from others for violation of various provisions of the Act of 1994 and the rules made thereunder. The complaint aforesaid was filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1994. In pursuance to the complaint, cognizance of offence was taken in majority of the cases. A challenge to the complaint as well as order for cognizance of offence has been made on various grounds.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that an inspection was made by the person not authorised under the Act of 1994. A reference of Section 17 & 17A of the Act of 1994 was given to show as to who is authorised to inspect diagnostic lab or clinic, etc. As per Sections 17 and 17A of the Act of 1994, authority of inspection lies with the Appropriate Authority and the Advisory Committee. The inspection can be made by the person having qualification as is required for the Appropriate Authority or Advisory Committee under Sections 17 & 17A of the Act of 1994. In the instant cases, inspection was not caused by the authorised person, thus not only inspection vitiates but subsequent complaint and the order of cognizance of offence also.

4. Further, reference of Section 28 of the Act of 1994 is given to show as to who is authorised to file complaint. As per Section 28, complaint can be filed only by the appropriate authority or a person authorised by the Central or the State Government. In the instant cases, complaint was filed without authorisation in favour of the person and is not by the appropriate authority, hence, on that count also, impugned complaint and the order of cognizance of offence deserve to be quashed.

5. In few cases, complaint has been filed by the private person without following provisions of Section 28(1)(b). No document was produced to show that private person had given notice as is required under Section 28(1)(b) of the Act of 1994.

6. A further reference of Section 17(4) of the Act of 1994 has been given to show that competence for investigation of the complaint for breach of provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder lies only with the appropriate authority.

7. In the case of Dr. Rajnish Sharma (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2686/2012), the FIR was registered prior to filing of the complaint. It resulted in negative final report. A protest petition was filed but negative final report was accepted and, thereupon, a private complaint was filed by none else but an Advocate having personal bias against the petitioner. After acceptance of negative final report, the complaint was not maintainable. The revision petition was filed by the petitioners but it was then dismissed hence additional ground has been taken in one case regarding maintainability of the complaint after acceptance of negative final report.

8. Learned counsel made reference of judgments of Apex Court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Fazru, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 631, Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 and in the case of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr., reported in 2003 (1) SCC 734 to support their arguments.

9. The other argument of the learned counsel for petitioners was in reference to Form 'F' provided under the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. The minor discrepancy or delay of few days in filling Form 'F' is not an offence. The Form 'F' can be filled before 5th day of the month as it is to be submitted on the aforesaid date, thus it can be filled any time before it. The respondents ignored the aforesaid and majority of the cases are in reference to minor discrepancy in Form 'F' or delay therein. A referen