The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 233/2007 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The above said FIR was lodged at the instance of the investigating officer Bajrang Singh Shekhawat, RPS, who was then posted as Circle Officer, Sadar, Jaipur. In the FIR it was stated that Bajrang Singh Shekhawat on 7.9.2007 and at 8:35 PM was on patrol duty and when he reached near railway station circle, special informant gave him information that the owner of the Hotel Visitor Home, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur had called girls from Delhi at his hotel, for the purposes of prostitution and he was taking Rs.2,000/- per girl from the customer and he had called three girls from Delhi. The special informant further informed that out of the said amount, half of the money is retained by hotel owner and half is paid to the girl. After making preparation for conducting raid by arranging decoy customers and handing over them currency notes, numbers of which were noted down, customer was sent to the hotel, when deal was struck, decoy customer relayed the message and raid was conducted.

3. Petitioner was one of the girl, who was arrested at the spot alongwith customer.

4. To seek quashing of impugned FIR, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following two arguments:-

Firstly, it is contended that Bajrang Singh Shekhawat the investigating officer was not notified as a Special Police Officer under Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Secondly, it is contended that in terms of the Section 15(2) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality out of which one should be woman were not called and hence, the search carried not in cosonance with the provisions of the Act, shall vitiate.

5. In support of above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Pankaj Bansal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 878/2017, decided on 30.11.2017. In the said judgment, it was held that since the prosecution failed to prove that the officer who had conducted raid was notified as a Special Police Officer, the said raid was bad. However, the second argument raised before this Court, that it is mandatory as per Section 15(2) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, to carry the search in presence of two persons is concerned, the same was not dealt with and the proceedings were quashed in Pankaj Bansal’s case (supra) for the reasons that the investigating officer was not notified, as Special Police Officer under Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“Since the argument regarding the C.O. not being authorised under the PITA Act to conduct the search and seizure proceeding was not raised before the Courts below and has been advanced for the first time in the instant misc. petition, this Court directed learned P.P. to file a reply to this averment made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned P.P. has filed a written reply wherein, though it is averred that Ms. Ranu Sharma, Circle Officer, P.S. Girwa was authorised to undertake search, seizure and investigation under the PITA Act but no document/notification has been filed in support of this bald assertion made in the reply. Since, a controversy has been raised about the incompetence of the police officer under the Special Act, existence of such authorisation has to be proved by a notification issued by the competent authority/Government as per the requirement of the Statute. However, the learned P.P. has failed to place on record, either with reply or during the course of arguments any notification whereby, the Court can be satisfied regarding Ms. Ranu Sharma C.O. having been authorise