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”). 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 the Appropriate Authority created under Section 17 of the Act of 1994. Learned counsel also submitted that the Act of 1994 is a special enactment and it is self-contained procedure with regard to powers of investigation, collection of evidence and lodging of the complaint and such powers are vested with the Appropriate Authority and the same is clear from Sections 17, 27, 28 and 30 of the Act of 1994. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the Rules of 1996 expressly discourages the involvement of the police in the investigation process. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the Rules of 1996 expressly discourages the involvement of the police in the investigation process. According to him creation of a Police Station and posting the police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector as Officer-in-charge of Police Station, is contrary to rules. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that conducting the decoy operation and extending incentives to the decoys who participated in the decoy operation, vitiate the fairness in investigation and vitiates entire investigation. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Ramesh Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.970/2015), passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court dated 26.03.2015, reported in MANU/RH/0566/2015; (2) Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No.3747/2024) : 2024 INSC 684 ; and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5802/2022). 12. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners while contending that the notification is not suffering from any repugnancy with the Act of 1994. The impugned notification aides Appropriate Authority in implementing the provisions of Act of 1994. According to him, the State Government has power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to create any post or place as a Police Station and to invest the powers of Investigation by designating officers of a particular cadre as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. According to him, the Chairman of the Appropriate Authority is created as a Police Station and such Police Station empowered to deal with all cognizable offences under the Act of 1994; Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971; Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954; and offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with offences under the above Act of 1994, 1971 and 1954. The PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation is the name of the Police Station and the police officers posted with such Bureau are not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of the Police who are Officers-in-charge of the Police Station. 13. The PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation is the name of the Police Station and the police officers posted with such Bureau are not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of the Police who are Officers-in-charge of the Police Station. 13. The police officers posted with the Bureau of Investigation have no independent power of investigation and they have to commence investigation on grant of authorisation by the Appropriate Authority. According to him there is no repugnancy in between special act and the impugned notification. 14. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the cases on hand the Appropriate Authority has information regarding the accused - Doctors conducting sex determination in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1994. On such information, on the authorization granted by Appropriate Authority decoy operation was carried out to know the secret operations of the accused-Doctors and the decoy operations were found to be correct and there are violations of various provision of the special enactment, leading to commission of offences. Therefore, the notification, the FIRs and complaint case are not liable to be quashed. 15. In the background of the above contentions, it is apt to refer to the contents of impugned notification dated 17.09.2012, issued by the State Government, which reads as follows:- “HOME (G-2) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Jaipur, September 17, 2012 S.O. 137:- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of Section-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974) and all other powers enabling it in this behalf of the State Government is pleased,- 1. to declare the office of Chairperson, State Appropriate Authority Rajasthan at Jaipur appointed under section 17 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Central Act No.57 of 1994), to be a Police Station by name of “PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation” at Jaipur and whose territorial Jurisdiction shall extend over the whole of the area of the State of Rajasthan and the location of the above Police Station shall be within campus of Office of Chairperson, State Appropriate Authority, Directorate of Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur or any other place as may be determined by State Government, from time to time. 2. 2. to direct that the aforesaid Police Station shall deal with all cognizable offences under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Central Act No.57 of 1994), the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (Central Act No.34 of 1971) and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Central Act No.21 of 1954) and offences under Indian Penal Code along with offences under the above Act of 1994, 1971 and 1954 and 3. to direct that the powers of an Officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall be exercisable by all Officers of and above the Rank of Sub Inspector of Police Posted in “PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation” Senior ranking Police Officers posted in “PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation” shall have all the power of Officer-in-charge of Police Station. [No.F.27(Ka)(7)Home-2/2012] By Order of the Governor O.P. Yadav Deputy Secretary to Government” 16. From a bare reading of the above notification, it is clear that the said notification was issued by the State of Rajasthan exercising powers conferred under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf. By such notification, the office of Chairperson, State Appropriate Authority created under Section 17 of the Act of 1994, is designated as a Police Station in the name of “PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation” at Jaipur. The jurisdiction of such Police Station is also demarcated by extending the whole area of the State of Rajasthan. The location of the above Police Station is within the campus of the office of Chairperson, State Appropriate Authority, Directorate of Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It has power to deal with all cognizable offences under the Act of 1994 (Central Act No.57 of the 1994), the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (Central Act No.34 of 1971) and the Drugs and Magic Remedies(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Central Act No.21 of 1954) and the offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with the offences under the above Act of 1994, 1971 and 1954. The officers posted with the Bureau of Investigation are not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and they are designated as Officers-in-charge of the Police Station. 17. The officers posted with the Bureau of Investigation are not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and they are designated as Officers-in-charge of the Police Station. 17. Section 2 (s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:- “2 (s) "police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;” 18. Upon reading of the above provision, it is clear that the State Government has the authority to declare any post or place as a “Police Station” and define its jurisdiction. The notification is in terms of the powers vested with the State Government under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 19. In the present case, the Chairman, Appropriate Authority created under the Act of 1994 was designated as a “Police Station” by naming it as “PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation” and has been given exclusive powers to deal with the cognizable offences under the special enactments referred therein and the Indian Penal Code offences committed along with the above special offences. 20. A close scrutiny of above notification, it is clear that the State Government has a power to create such Police Station and define its jurisdiction and designate the officers to the Police Station In-charge. 21. Now, the question is as to whether this notification violates any of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Sections 17, 17-A, 23, 27, 28 and 30 of the Act of 1994. The Section 17 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. (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 sub-section (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, suo motu 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 pre-natal determination of sex; (g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act and rules; (h) to recommend to the Board 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, obstericians, 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 techniques 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.” 22. A reading of Section 17 of the Act of 1994 shows that the Central Government is empowered to appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purpose of this Act. Similarly, the State Government is empowered to appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act. The Appropriate Authority shall consist the officer of or above the rank of Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare as a Chairperson; an eminent woman representing the women’s organization; and an officer of Law Department of State or Union territory concerned. Similarly, the State or the Central Government has the power to appoint an advisory committee for each of the Appropriate Authority. The said Advisory Committee shall consist of three medical experts amongst them gynecologist, obstetricians, pediatricians and medical geneticists; one legal expert; one officer representing the Department dealing with information and publicity of the State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be; three eminent social workers of whom not less than one shall be from amongst representatives of women’s organizations. The functions of the Appropriate Authority are defined under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act of 1994, which include investigation of complaints relating to breach of provisions of this Act. 23. The Section 17A reads as follows:- “[17A. The functions of the Appropriate Authority are defined under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act of 1994, which include investigation of complaints relating to breach of provisions of this Act. 23. The Section 17A reads as follows:- “[17A. Powers of Appropriate Authorities.- The Appropriate Authority shall have the powers in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning of any person who is in possession of any information relating to violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (b) production of any document or material object relating to clause (a); (c) issuing search warrant for any place suspected to be indulging in sex selection techniques or pre-natal sex determination; and (d) any other matter which may be prescribed.]” 24. Section 17 A deals with the powers in respect of summoning, production of the documents or object, search warrants any other matter which may be prescribed. Section 23 prescribes the offence and penalties for violations under the Act. Section 27 of the Act says that all the offences under the Act are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. 25. It is also relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act of 1994 which reads hereunder:- “23. Offences and penalties.- (1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. [(2) The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence. (3) Any person who seeks the aid of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging specialist or registered medical practitioner or any other person for sex selection or for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. (4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby provided, that the provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to the woman who was compelled to undergo such diagnostic techniques or such selection.]” 26. The Section 23 of the Act creates offences for contravention of various provisions and prescribes punishments for first contravention and subsequent contraventions. 27. It is also relevant to refer to Sections 27, 28 and 30 of the Act of 1994 which reads hereunder:- “27. Offence to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.- Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. 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. 30. Power to search and seize records, etc. (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. 30. Power to search and seize records, etc. - [(1) If the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed at any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any other place, such Authority or any officer authorised thereof in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as such authority or officer considers necessary, such Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or any other place and examine any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found therein and seize and seal the same if such Authority or officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an office punishable under this Act.] (2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to searches and seizures shall, so far as may be, apply to every search or seizure made under this Act.” 28. Section 27 makes all offences cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 28 is more relevant in the context of the present writ petitions. As per above provision, the cognizance can only be taken on basis of complaint by Appropriate Authority or its authorized officer or any officer authorized in this behalf either by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. Furthermore, complaint can also be filed by a person who has given notice of not less than 15 days to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make complaint to the Court. Only the Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class are empowered to deal with the offences under this Section. 29. Section 30 deals with the power of search and seizure. A reading of the above Section makes it clear that if the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, such authority or any officer authorized in this behalf may conduct search and seizure. 29. Section 30 deals with the power of search and seizure. A reading of the above Section makes it clear that if the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, such authority or any officer authorized in this behalf may conduct search and seizure. Sub-section (2) extends the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure. 30. In this regard, Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 is also relevant. The said rule reads as follows:- “12. Procedure for search and seizure- [(1) The Appropriate Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf may enter and search at all reasonable times any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Imaging Centre or Ultrasound Clinic in the presence of two or more independent witnesses for the purposes of search and examination of any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or any other material object found therein and seal and seize the same if there is reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of commission of an offence punishable under the Act. Explanation.- In these rules- (1)‘Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic/Genetic Counselling Centre’ would include an ultrasound centre/imaging centre/nursing home/hospital/institute or any other place, by whatever name called, where any of the machines or equipments capable of selection of sex before or after conception or performing any procedure technique or test for pre-natal detection of sex of foetus, is used; (2) ‘material object’ would include records, machines and equipments; and (3) ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ would include ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’ respectively.] (2) A list of any document, record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found in the [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre] and seized shall be prepared in duplicate at the place of effecting the seizure. Both copies of such list shall be signed on every page by the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorised in this behalf and by the witnesses to the seizure: Provided that the list may be prepared, in the presence of the witnesses, at a place other than the place of seizure if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not practicable to make the list at the place of affection the seizure. (3) One copy of the list referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be handed over, under acknowledgement, to the person from whose custody the document, record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object have been seized: Provided that a copy of the list of such document, record, register, book pamphlet, advertisement or other material object sized may be delivered under acknowledgement, or sent by registered post to the owner or manager of the [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre], if no person acknowledging custody of the document, record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or other material object seized is available at the place of effecting the seizure. (4) If any material object seized is perishable in nature, the Appropriate Authority, or the officer authorised in this behalf shall make arrangements promptly for sealing, identification and preservation of the material object and also convey it to a facility for analysis or test, if analysis or test be required: Provided that the refrigerator or other equipment used by the [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre] for preserving such perishable material object may be sealed until such time as arrangements can be made for safe removal of such perishable material object and in such eventuality, mention of keeping the material object seized, on the premises of the Genetic counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be made in the list of seizure. (5) In the case of non-completion of search and seizure operation, the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorized in this behalf may make arrangements, by way of mounting a guard or sealing of the premises of the [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre], for safe keeping, listing and removal of documents, records, book or any other material object to be seized, and to prevent any tampering with such documents, records, books or any other material object.” 31. From a reading of the above rule, it is clear that the Appropriate Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf may enter and search all the premises in the presence of two or more independent witnesses and examine any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found therein and seal and seize the same, if there is a reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of commission of an offence punishable under the Act. It also prescribes how a seizure has to be made and other details. 32. Rule 18A is also relevant, which reads as under:- “[18A. Code of Conduct to be observed by Appropriate Authorities.- (1) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following general code of conduct, namely:- (i) maintain dignity, and integrity at all times; (ii) observe and implement the provisions of the Act and Rules in a balanced and standardised manner in the course of their work; (iii) conduct their work in a just manner without any bias or a perceived presumption of guilt; (iv) refrain from making any comments which demean individuals on the basis of gender, race, religion; (v) delegate his or her powers by administrative order to any authorised officer in his or her absence and preserve the order of authorisation as documentary proof for further action. (2) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following Conduct for Advisory Committees, namely:- (i) ensure that the re-constitution, functions and other relevant matters related to advisory committee shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Advisory Committee Rules, 1996; (ii) ensure that a person who is the part of investigating machinery in cases under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), shall not be nominated or appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee; (iii) ensure that the process of filling up of vacancies in Advisory Committee shall start at least ninety days before the probable date of the occurrence of vacancy; (iv) ensure that no person shall participate as a member or a legal expert of the Advisory Committee if he or she has conflict of interest; (v) conduct frequent meetings of the Advisory Committee to expedite the decisions regarding renewal, cancellation and suspension of registration. (3) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for processing of complaint and investigation, namely:- (i) maintain appropriate diaries in support of registration of each of the complaint or case under the Act; (ii) attend to all complaints and maintain transparency in the follow-up action of the complaints; (iii) investigate all the complaints within twenty four hours of receipt of the complaint and complete the investigation within forty-eight hours of receipt of such compliant; (iv) as far as possible, not involve police for investigating cases under the Act as the cases under the Act are tried as complaint cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (4) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for registration and renewal of applications under the Act, namely:- (i) dispose of the application for renewal and new registration within a period of seventy days from the date of receipt of application; [(ii) ensure that no application for fresh registration or renewal of registration is accepted if any case is pending in any court against the applicant for violation of any provision of the act and the rules made thereunder.] (5) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for Legal Action, namely:- (i) ensure that protection and expenses of witness shall be met from the registration amount collected; (ii) ensure that all the notifications of the Government be produced in original in the court and a copy of the same be preserved; (iii) ensure that while filing the cases, all the papers, records, statements, evidence, panchnama and other material objects attached to the case file shall be in original; (iv) suspend the certificate of registration in the course of taking legal action of seizure and sealing of the facility; (v) ensure that there shall be no violation of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971) and the Rules made there-under while implementing the provisions of the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996; (vi) take immediate action for filing appeal, revision or other proceeding in higher courts in case of order of acquittal within a period of thirty days but not later than fifteen days of receipt of the order of acquittal. (6) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall submit quarterly progress report to the Government of India through State Government and maintain Form H for keeping the information of all the registrations made readily available. (6) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall submit quarterly progress report to the Government of India through State Government and maintain Form H for keeping the information of all the registrations made readily available. (7) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following regulation of ultrasound equipments, namely:- (i) monitor the sales and import of ultrasound machines including portable or buyback, assembled, gift, scrap or demo; (ii)ensue regular quarterly reports from ultrasound manufacturers, dealers, wholesalers and retailers and any person dealing with the sales of ultrasound machines at the State level; (iii) conduct periodical survey and audit of all the ultrasound machines sold and operating in the State or district to identify the unregistered machines; (iv) file complaint against any owner of the unregistered ultrasound machine and against the seller of the unregistered ultrasound machine. (8) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for inspection and monitoring, namely:- (i) conduct regular inspection of all the registered facilities once in every ninety days and shall preserve the inspection report as documentary evidence and a copy of the same be handed over to the owner of facility inspected and obtain acknowledgement in respect of the inspection; (ii) place all the inspection reports once in three months before the Advisory Committee for follow up action; (iii) maintain bimonthly progress report containing number of cases filed and persons convicted, registration made, suspended or cancelled, medical licenses cancelled, suspended, inspections conducted, Advisory Committee meetings held at the district level and quarterly progress report at the State level; (iv) (a) procure the copy of the charges framed within seven days and in the case of doctors, the details of the charges framed shall be submitted within seven days of the receipt of copy of charges framed to the State Medical Council; (b) procure the certified copy of the order of conviction as soon as possible and in the case of conviction of the doctors, the certified copy of the order of conviction shall be submitted within seven days of the receipt of copy of the order of conviction. (9) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for accountability, namely:- (i) obtain prior sanction or approval of the Government of India for any resolution concerning the implementation of the provisions of the Act; (ii) take action, if any, required under the Act and immediately on receipt of notice under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 28 of the Act and if he or she fails to do so, shall not be entitled for the protection under section 31 of the said Act and defend the case in his or her own capacity and at his or her own cost. (10) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall follow the following financial guidance, namely:- (i) maintain a separate and independent bank account operated by two officers jointly, at all levels; (ii) ensure transparency and adherence to standard Government financial norms for disbursement of money.” 33. Rules 18A(1)(v) enables the Appropriate Authority to delegate his or her powers by administrative order to any authorized officer in his or her absence and preserve the order of authorization as documentary proof for further action. 34. Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the Rules of 1996 minimizes the police involvement in investigation as far as possible, as the cases under the Act are tried as complaint cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 35. Rule 18A(5) details of the legal action has to be taken in conducting the proceedings basing on the complaint and filing of appeals or revisions. 36. From a reading of the framework relating to an investigation under the Act of 1994, it is clear that the Appropriate Authority itself or through its authorised officer can conduct any of the functions which are vested with the Appropriate Authority including the authority to conduct the investigation. 37. The Bureau of Investigation has to commence the investigation only on authorization from the Appropriate Authority. The Bureau of Investigation has no independent power to conduct investigation except on authorization which is clear from section 17(4), Section 30 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996. Once such a delegation is made to the officers of Bureau, they have all the powers including issuance of FIR, arrest, search and seizure, collection of evidence, recording of statement etc. Once such a delegation is made to the officers of Bureau, they have all the powers including issuance of FIR, arrest, search and seizure, collection of evidence, recording of statement etc. which the normal Officer-in-charge of the Police Station would have powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 38. The pleadings of the State Government clearly indicate that the commencement of the investigation and decoy operation has been done in pursuance of the authorization from the Appropriate Authority. 39. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation which is done by way of decoy operation, has been done by the Bureau of Investigation without any authorization from the Appropriate Authority. 40. Section 28 (1) enables the Appropriate Authority or any person authorized by it or any officer authorized by the State Government or the Union Government, as the case may be, to lodge a complaint. Serial No.2 of the notification enables Bureau and its officers to deal with all the offences under the Act of 1994, Act of 1971, Act of 1954 and also offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with the above special offences. Such power has been given to the Police Station which is called PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur and officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector are made Officer-in-charge of such Police Station. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation, is a person designated by the State Government and he is competent person to file the complaint under Section 28(1) of the Act of 1994. 41. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned notification created police station, conferred investigation powers on such police officer such action is contrary to the Central legislation thereby impugned notification has created repugnancy. Such contention has no merit. The notification is in aid to implement the provisions of special Act. The Bureau is having expert police officer who can aid the Appropriate Authority to do investigation. Such investigation is done with authorization of Appropriate Authority. 42. Further, the Section 28(1) specifically enables the Appropriate Authority or the person authorized by it or any Officer designated by the State or the Union to file complaint. The Bureau is having expert police officer who can aid the Appropriate Authority to do investigation. Such investigation is done with authorization of Appropriate Authority. 42. Further, the Section 28(1) specifically enables the Appropriate Authority or the person authorized by it or any Officer designated by the State or the Union to file complaint. A conjoint reading of above provisions, it is clear that commencement of investigation can only be done with authorization from the Appropriate Authority, however, Bureau through its Officer-in-charge of Police Station is competent to file a complaint which power is traceable from the section 28 of the Act and notification. Such procedure is not against any provisions of the Act. 43. It is true that Rule 18-A (3) (iv) of the Act of 1994 minimizes police interference in the investigation. Such provision is only an advisory and not a prohibition. The composition of the Appropriate Authority either State level or any other part shows that such persons have no expertise in dealing with the investigation or collection of evidence or conducting of search and seizure. The Appropriate Authority can take assistance from police officers for conducting investigation. 44. The commencement of entire process of investigation by Bureau must be with the permission of the Appropriate Authority. Once, such authorization is given, the Officer-in-charge of the PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation, is entitle to commence the investigation and take all the measures which are vested with the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station in conducting an investigation, including arrest, search and seizure or examination of witnesses in connection with the offence or any other requirements. Upon collection of such evidence, by virtue of notification, the Police Station i.e. PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation is authorized to file a complaint in terms of Section 28(1) of the Act of 1994. 45. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ramesh Chand Gupta (cited supra) stands differently. In that case challenge was made to validity of notification appointing a single member committee contrary to the scheme of Section 17 of the Act of 1994. Such appointment was held to be bad since in that case Appropriate Authority consisting of the Sub Divisional Officer was alone appointed as Chairman and authorization was given by such a single member authority to commence the investigation or to file a complaint. Such appointment was held to be bad since in that case Appropriate Authority consisting of the Sub Divisional Officer was alone appointed as Chairman and authorization was given by such a single member authority to commence the investigation or to file a complaint. The facts in hand stand on a different footing; therefore, this decision would not help the petitioners. 46. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ravinder Kumar (cited supra) show that Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings only on the ground that authorization for investigation including search or seizure was only granted by individual member and not by the collective members of the Appropriate Authority. Thus, it will not help the petitioners. 47. In the present case, the petitioners did not claim that there was no proper authorization to Special Bureau of Investigation from the Appropriate Authority for decoy operation and the investigation. The counter pleadings show that decoy operation and investigation was done with authorization from the appropriate authority. 48. Further, the stage of criminal proceedings show that investigation was completed and complaint cases have been filed. Later, cognizance has been taken on the basis of complaint and they are pending before competent court. At this stage FIRs cannot be quashed and in fact they have become inconsequential. We find no merit in these criminal writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed with the following observations: (i) The notification under challenge is held to be a valid notification. (ii) The Police Station, PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation shall commence the investigation only upon authorization granted by the collective decision of the Appropriate Authority but not the Chairman sitting singularly. (iii) The Police Station, PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation is a designated authority for lodging a complaint under Section 28 of the Act of 1994 by virtue of impugned notification and no specific authorization is required from the Appropriate Authority to lodge the complaint. (iv) This order shall not come in the way of petitioners’ right to take all defences touching the merits of each case.