JUDGMENT

J.P. DAS, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 16.01.2016 and the proceeding in 2 (C) C.C. Case No.01 of 2016 on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak alleging the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ( in short “the Act, 1994”) for violating the provisions of Section 5 and 29 (2) of the Act, 1994 and Rules 9,11 and 18 of the P.C.& P.N.D.T. Rule.

3. The proceeding was initiated and cognizance was taken on Prosecution Report filed by the Assistant District Medical Officer, (F.W. & Imm) office of the C.D.M.O., Bhadrak alleging that on 23.11.2015 the Additional Tahasildar, Bhadrak being authorized by the Sub-Collector-cum Sub District Appropriate Authority, Bhadrak by Order No.1492 dated 23.11.2015 inspected the clinic of the present petitioner and found out certain anomalies and discrepancies in relation to the affairs of the Ultrasound Unit run by the present petitioner besides not being registered under the Odisha Clinical Establishment (Control and Regulation) Act, 1990. The Unit of the present petitioner was sealed and after completion of enquiry the Prosecution Report was filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak who by the impugned order dated 16.01.2016 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, 1994 directing to issue summons against the present accused-petitioner.

4. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a registered practitioner of the Odisha Medical Council of Registration started his own Diagnostic Centre and Ultra Sound Clinic at Bhadrak in the year 2012 in the name and style of New Omm Shanti Diagnostic Centre which was duly registered with the Collector and the Chairman of the P.C. and P.N.D.T., Bhadrak and validity of such registration was till 30.05.2017. It was further submitted that the petitioner received a communication from the C.D.M.O.-cum-Member Secretary, P.C. and P.N.D.T. Act, Bhadrak dated 7th November, 2011 that he must make an application for registration of his Unit under the Odisha Clinical Establishment (Control and Regulation) Act, 1990) and it was directed to make an application in the enclosed proforma by 31st December, 2015. It was submitted that all of a sudden on 23.11.2015 around 2 P.M. the Additional Tahasildar, Bhadrak being accompanied by other officials conducted a rain on the clinic of the petitioner and seized some document and also sealed the Unit. The sealing of the Unit was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (C) No.22434 of 2016 and by order dated 17.02.2016 concerned authorities were directed to hand over the clinic to the petitioner. It was submitted that due to some ulterior motive the Prosecution Report was filed against the petitioner on 16.01.2016 and on the same day the learned S.D.J.M., took cognizance as aforesaid. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding was vitiated for having not been conducted according to the statutory provision.

5. The only contention that has been raised is that as per the office memorandum dated 27.07.2007 of the Government of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department, the District Magistrate of each district has been appointed as the District Appropriate Authority for the district under the Act, 1994 and he may nominate an Executive Magistrate of the district as nominee to assist him in monitoring the implementation of the said Act as deemed necessary. In the said notification, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sub-Collector) of each Sub-Division has been appointed as the appropriate authority for the Sub-district (Subdivision) for smooth implementation of the provision under the Act, 1994. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not been authorized