IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a notification designating the Appropriate Authority as a Police Station, affirming that it aids in implementing the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 without violating its provisions.

JUDGMENT :

[Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :

1. This order disposes of D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.885/2023 and D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.339/2022.

2. The challenge in both these petitions is to the notification dated 17.09.2012, issued by the State of Rajasthan through the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the consequential action of the officer designated thereunder in pursuance of the said notification.

3. In D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 885/2023, FIR No.3/2022 was registered against the accused Shanta Kumari Choudhary and Avan Kumar Prajapat, at Police Station PBI, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur, leading to Complaint Case No.68/22 pending on the file of learned Special Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur, Metropolitan. In the second criminal writ petition i.e. D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.339/2022, FIR No.13/2016 was registered against the accused Dr. Mohd. Niyaj and Smt. Raji Mol, at Police Station PBI, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur leading to Complaint Case No.53/2017, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbatsar, District Nagaur.

4. Petitioners are the Hospitals (Laxmi Hospital and Suncity Hospital) represented by Doctors who are accused in these matters. The FIRs were registered by the Police Station PBI, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur and complaint cases were filed by designated Bureau.

5. The petitioners’ claim that they are practicing Doctors in their respective fields and these FIRs and complaint cases were filed under the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”).

6. The grounds of challenge in these writ petitions are that the provisions of the Act of 1994 as well as the Rules framed thereunder are having self-contained mechanisms and issuing of such notification by the State Government in the exercise of their powers conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are contrary to the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996. The petitioners’ claim is that the Appropriate Authority created under Section 17 of the Act of 1994 is invested with all the powers to deal with the violations under the Act of 1994 and the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). Other ground of challenge is that the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996 were enacted by the Central Government. The notification issued by the State Government under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is repugnant to the provisions of the Act of 1994. Thus, the Central Act and Rules must prevail over the notification; therefore, the impugned notification and consequential action of registration of the FIRs and filing of complaint case by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, created under the notification, are liable to be quashed.

7. The pleadings of the respondents show that the notification has nothing to do with the powers of the Appropriate Authority created under Section 17 of the Act of 1994. The Bureau of Investigation is created to aid the Appropriate Authority in conducting the investigation, collecting the evidence relating to the violations and prosecution for commission of offences. Such notification is not encroaching upon any of the provisions of the Act of 1994. According to them, there is no repugnancy between the notification and the provisions of the Act of 1994. The entire investigation done by the Bureau of Investigation is done in pursuance of proper authorization from the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, the impugned notification is not in conflict with any provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the impugned notification is undermining and encroaching upon the powers of