Order :

1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: -

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge No.5 in Criminal Revision No. 30/2015 (NCB-251/2015) as well as order dated 10.07.2012 passed by Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan in Crl. Case No. 4/2012 (State Vs. Dr Runu Bhatia & Anr.) may kindly be quashed and set aside”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that on 17.12.2010, one Mohd. Rijwan Parvez, Project Manager of Centre for Advocacy and Research (an Organization working at the State and District Level in association with the PCPNDT Cell) submitted a report before the Sub-Director (RHC) wherein he was working at the district level in P.C.P.N.D.T Act for the previous 2 years and stated that he received an information about a clinic in Jodhpur conducting sex determination tests. And that, it was stated therein that in pursuance of the said information, the complainant, along with another member of the Organization, and two Advocates, went to one Adarsh Diagnostic Centre (owned by the present petitioners), and conducted a Sting Operation. In the said Sting Operation, they searched, and seized the articles from the clinic of the present-petitioner. And that, on the basis of the said report, the P.C.P.N.D.T Team on 24.01.2011 proceeded to inspect the premises of the clinic and found certain irregularities. On the basis of this inspection report, Complaint No. 748/2011 was registered in the Special Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT Cases, Jodhpur, under the PCPNDT Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pre-charge evidence was recorded and the learned Special Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after the hearing the arguments of both sides, framed the charges against the present petitioners vide the impugned order dated 10.07.2012 for the offences under Sections 4(3) and 6 read with Sections 23 and Rule 3, 9, (1) (4) (8), 17 (1) (2), 18 (II) read with Section 23 of P.C.P.N.D.T Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the sting operation has been conducted by a private Organization, and that no private organization is authorized to conduct such a sting operation.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the private organization has not taken any prior permission from the Authorized Officer under the P.C.P.N.D.T Act, and that private organizations have no power to search or seize any property without the presence of an Authorized Officer, duly appointed under the PCPNDT Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards Section 17 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 and the corresponding Rule 12 of P.C.P.N.D.T Rules, 1996.

Relevant portions of the same are reproduced hereunder:-

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 subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall be, -

(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare; and

(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 Appropriat