1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 18.2.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur rejecting the revision preferred by the accused petitioners against the order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Udaipur whereby, charges were directed to be framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short referred to herein after as ‘PITA Act’).

3. As per the prosecution case, on 5.4.2015 Ms.Ranu Sharma C.O., Girwa acting on a prior information conducted a raid at Hotel Udai Palace & Resort owned by the petitioners located on the Udaipur Nathdwara Highway with the aid of S.H.O., P.S. Goverdhan Vilas and discovered that the hotel premises was being used for organising a Rave party, in which liquor was being served illegally and services of girls had been procured for prostitution, etc. After conducting the search and seizure proceedings under the PITA Act, the C.O. apprehended as many as 85 people (including the petitioners) from the hotel which was owned and being operated by the petitioners herein. On the basis of these proceedings, an FIR No.99/2015 came to be registered at P.S. Goverdhan Vilas for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the PITA Act against 85 persons including the petitioners. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against all the accused for these offences.

4. By order dated 16.1.2017, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Udaipur directed framing of charges against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the PITA Act and against the remaining accused persons for varying provisions of PITA Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioners through a revision which came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur by order dated 18.2.2017. Hence, this misc. petition has been preferred to challenge the impugned orders.

5. Shri Kotwani learned counsel representing the petitioners assailed the impugned orders and the entire proceedings sought to be undertaken against the petitioners on the legal ground that the Circle Officer Ms. Ranu Sharma who conducted the raid on the disputed premises was not authorised to do so under the provisions of the PITA Act and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Shri Kotwani urged that as no notification has ever been issued by the State Government to appoint Ms. Ranu Sharma to be a special police officer under Section 2(i) of the PITA Act, the entire proceedings including the order taking cognizance which are based on totally illegal and un-authorised search and seizure are vitiated and as such, the proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. He relied upon the following judgments to support his contention:-

(1) AIR 1962 SC 63 (Delhi Administration vs. Ram Singh)

(2) 2002 Law Suit (Kerla) 78 (Sinu Sainudheen vs. Sub Inspector of Police)

(3) 2008 Law Suit (H.P.) 368 (State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh and others)

(4) 2014 Law Suit (Kerla) 423 (Sreejith @ Ayyapan and Sanjeev S vs. State of Kerala)

(5) 2014 Law Suit (Kerla) 432 (Shajahan and others. vs. State of Kerala) and

(6) 2014 Law Suit (Kerla) 576 (C.P. Raju, S/O Pathrose vs. State of Kerala, Circle Inspector of Police).

6. He further urged that the C.O. did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 15(2) of the PITA Act as per which, two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality have to be associated to attend and witness the search and seizure proceedings under this Act. He urged that only two police officers who were members of the raiding team were associated as panchas in the process of search and seizure and as such, the entire proceedings a