RENU BHATIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(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 24/1/2011 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 dtd. 10/7/2012 for the offences under Ss. 4(3) and 6 read with Ss. 23 and Rule 3, 9, (1)(4)(8), 17(1)(2), 18(II) read with Sec. 23 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.