JUDGMENT 1. - In Regular Criminal Case No. 29/2012 Dr. Anil Bansal was ordered to be charged under Rules 9(1) and 18(8) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the PCPNDT Rules, 1996') read with Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'). Accused Dr. Anil Bansal filed a revision petition in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar and the said Criminal Revision No. 29/2012 titled as Dr. Anil Bansal v. State & Anr. was decided on 20.7.2012 by that Court and that Court has discharged the accused Dr. Anil Bansal from the charges of breach of Rules 9(1) and 18(8) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996 read with Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Now, the State of Rajasthan has challenged the order dated 20.7.2012 passed by the Revisional Court. 2. I have heard arguments of both the sides. It has been argued by the petitioners that the Revisional Court has seriously erred in discharging the accused-respondent while considering the merits of the case, whereas it is settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charge, only prima facie case is to be taken into consideration and the evidence brought on record clearly established a prima facie case against the respondent and so the order framing charge against the accused-respondent should not have been quashed by the Revisional Court. It has been prayed that the impugned order dated 20.7.2012 should be quashed and the order of the Trial Court in this regard should be restored. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused-respondent Dr. Anil Bansal that he has rightly been discharged by the Revisional Court because it is settled position of law that under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, it is only the Competent Officer who can make the inspection and as per the papers, particularly Ex.P-11, it is clear that for the whole District, the Collector was the Competent Officer for the purpose of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and for Revenue Sub-Division of Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Health), Sri Ganganagar was the only Competent Officer. This order was in force on 13.1.2009. 4. It is not in dispute that inspection was made in this case by Dr. This order was in force on 13.1.2009. 4. It is not in dispute that inspection was made in this case by Dr. Saroj Gupta, who was only Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (Family Planning), Sri Ganganagar. There is no paper on record which proves that she was having additional charge of the post of Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Health), Sri Ganganagar. It is also on record that Dr. Saroj Gupta has inspected the premises of accused-respondent Dr. Anil Bansal on the oral directions of the then Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar. Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court, while deciding Revision Petition (Civil) No. 82/2011 on 3.10.2013 titled as T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India has again clarified that civil servants are not supposed to act upon oral orders or instructions of administrative superior or political executive. No doubt, statements of PW-1 Dr. Saroj Gupta and PW-2 Dr. Indrapal Singh are on record, but in a private complaint case when evidence has been recorded before the charge, then Section 245 of Cr.P.C. says that if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if un-rebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX of Indian Penal Code, which sum Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 5. In the case in hand. Dr. Saroj Gupta, who had inspected the premises in question, was not a Competent Officer for this purpose and so the whole trial has vitiated and accordingly, it can be said that the impugned order dated 1 20.7.201 2 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar deserve to interference and hence this revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and Dr. Indrapal Singh deserves dismissal, which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar is kept intact. With two copies of this order, the record of the Courts below be immediately returned.Revision dismissed. *******