JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.943/2019 including the order dated 10.07.2019 whereby the summons have been directed to be issued to the accused persons including the petitioner, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. The complaint petition has been filed under Section 23/25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1994”) alleging therein that Santosh Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate, Koderma was given the responsibility of the appropriate authority for the period from 27.05.2019 to 28.05.2019. For conducting decoy operation, from the State level Rafat Farzana, Coordinator, PCPNDT, Shree Rajan Chaudhary, Social Worker, Rajasthan, Shree Arshad Hussain, Social Worker were called and the planning was done to conduct decoy operation on 27.05.2019. According to the complaint petition after briefing about the procedure to be followed, the providing money for the purpose of payment as fee for ultrasonography, the decoy agents were sent to Dhanvantari Ultrasound and the petitioner was arrested on the ground that she has conducted sex determination test and conveyed about female foetus to the tout, who in turn conveyed it to the pregnant lady (decoy agent). 4. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in light of Section 28 of the Act, 1994, appropriate authority is required to file the case and the same person is also authorized to enquire into the matter, which is in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, 1994. According to him, even search and seizure power is with the appropriate authority in light of section 30 of the Act, 1994. He further advances his argument by way of submitting that in a special statute, there is requirement to follow certain thing which is required to be done in light of special statute, which has not been done in the case in hand. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukam Chand Shyamlal v. Union of India and Ors.; AIR 1976 SC 789 and he particularly relied on paragraph no.18 of the said judgment. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukam Chand Shyamlal v. Union of India and Ors.; AIR 1976 SC 789 and he particularly relied on paragraph no.18 of the said judgment. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that for the same offence one FIR is lodged and trial has proceeded however the complaint is filed only to rectify the first case and the requirement of statute has not been followed. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanj; AIR 1952 SC 16 . He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that earlier there was no notification with regard to the authority in light of the provisions made in the said Act and recently the notification has been published on official gazette on 04.08.2022. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding is bad in law and the same will not survive in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State on instruction submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has made communication to him and he has provided letter dated 06.06.2012 with regard to appointment of appropriate authority for lodging the case under the Act, 1994. Apart from that, he has not received any further instruction. He further submits that the notification dated 04.08.2022 has been published on official gazette. On this ground, he submits that this petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record. Admittedly, the complaint case has been filed by one Santosh Kumar Singh. In the complaint petition, notification or authorization is not annexed. Section 28 of the Act, 1994 speaks of cognizance of offences, which reads as under: “28. Admittedly, the complaint case has been filed by one Santosh Kumar Singh. In the complaint petition, notification or authorization is not annexed. Section 28 of the Act, 1994 speaks of 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. Explanation.--For the purpose of this clause, "person" includes a social organisation. (2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. (3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of subsection (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.” 7. Section 2(a) of the Act, 1994 provides that the appropriate authority means the appropriate authority appointed under Section 17 of the Act, 1994. Section 17(2) of the Act, 1994 provides that the appointment shall be made by notification in the official gazette. Section 17 of the Act, 1994 reads as under: “17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.- (1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act (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 purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide. (3) The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) Shall be,- (a) When appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consisting of the following three members (i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare Chairperson; (ii) an eminent woman representing women’s organization; and (iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned: Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multi-member State or Union territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002: Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of that occurrence. (b) When appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit. (4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following functions, namely:-- (a) To grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic; (b) To enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic; (c) To investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action; (d) To seek and consider the advice of the Advisory Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on application for registration and on complaints for suspension or cancellation of registration; (e) To take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suomotu or brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter; (f) To create public awareness against the practice of sex selection or prenatal determination of sex; (g) To supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act and rules; (h) To recommend to the CSB and State Boards modifications required in the rules in accordance with changes in technology or social conditions; (i) To take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee made after investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration. (5) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute an Advisory Committee for each Appropriate Authority to aid and advise the Appropriate Authority in the discharge of its functions, and shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman. (6) The Advisory Committee shall consist of— (a) Three medical experts from amongst gynaecologists, obstetricians, paediatricians and medical geneticists; (b) One legal expert; (c) One officer to represent the department dealing with information and publicity of the State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be; (d) three eminent social workers of whom not less than one shall be from amongst representatives of women's organisations. (7) No person who has been associated with the use or promotion of pre-natal diagnostic technique for determination of sex or sex selection shall be appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee. (8) The Advisory Committee may meet as and when it thinks fit or on the request of the Appropriate Authority for consideration of any application for registration or any complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration and to give advice thereon: Provided that the period intervening between any two meetings shall not exceed the prescribed period. (9) The terms and conditions subject to which a person may be appointed to the Advisory Committee and the procedure to be followed by such Committee in the discharge of its functions shall be such as may be prescribed.” 8. Admittedly, in light of Section 28, 2(a) and 17 of the Act, 1994, prescribed procedure is not followed in filing the case against the petitioner. There was no notification at the time of filing of the complaint case. The notification has been recently published in official gazette on 04.08.2022, which has been taken on record and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also perused that notification. Section 28 of the Act, 1994 speaks that no court shall take cognizance unless it is filed by the appropriate authority. If the power is vested in particular authority, that authority is required to file the case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CommissionerofPolice, Bombay(supra). 9. The entire case of the State raised upon the communication dated 06.06.2012, which has been received by Mr. If the power is vested in particular authority, that authority is required to file the case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CommissionerofPolice, Bombay(supra). 9. The entire case of the State raised upon the communication dated 06.06.2012, which has been received by Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, which has been transmitted to the Court and the same is taken on record. The said letter has not been published in official gazette and it was not published earlier in official gazette and that will be enforced only on 04.08.2022, the date on which the notification has been published in official gazette and that notification has got no retrospective force. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and considering that appropriate authority constituted by the State Government or the Central Government has not filed the case, the entire proceeding is vitiated. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.943/2019 including the order dated 10.07.2019 so far as the petitioner is concerned, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma is, hereby, quashed. 11. In view of the above terms, this petition stands disposed of. 12. Interim order dated 03.09.2020 stands vacated.