The Supreme Court has held that the police cannot act as the main investigating authority for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), notwithstanding the offences being classified as cognizable and non-bailable. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that the Appropriate Authority (AA) is the competent authority to investigate offences under the Act, while the police can have only a supplemental role under the supervision of the AA.
The case arose from a reference concerning whether the police could register an FIR and investigate PCPNDT Act offences merely because Section 27 makes them cognizable and non-bailable, and whether a Magistrate could take cognizance on the basis of a police chargesheet. The reference was made against the backdrop of conflicting High Court decisions on the role of the police under the special legislation.
Answering the first question, the Court held that Sections 27 and 28, read with the other provisions of the Act, do not contemplate the police as investigators for PCPNDT offences. The Court emphasised the specialised and socially beneficial nature of the legislation, which requires medical and technical expertise and sensitivity in enforcement. However, the restriction is confined to offences under the PCPNDT Act and does not prevent the police from investigating independent offences under the IPC/BNS or other substantive criminal law arising from the same transaction.
On the second question, the Court relied particularly on Section 17(4), which expressly assigns investigation of complaints to the Appropriate Authority, and Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, which requires that police involvement be avoided as far as possible. The Court held that the police therefore cannot be the principal investigating agency. Their involvement, if required, can only be supplemental and under the supervision of the Appropriate Authority.
On the third question, the Court gave a categorical answer: a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT Act offence on the basis of a police chargesheet. Section 28 creates a statutory embargo on cognizance except through the modes specified in that provision, including a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or other authorised persons.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in a separate concurring opinion, clarified that a single transaction may give rise to two parallel procedural tracks, the Appropriate Authority may investigate the PCPNDT component, while the police may independently investigate IPC/BNS offences arising from the same or connected occurrence. The existence of a common factual transaction does not merge the two statutory routes.
The Court accordingly answered the reference and remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration in accordance with the judgment, while disposing of the appeal and pending applications.
