ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. State has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 08.06.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned lower revisional Court’), whereby learned lower revisional Court has set aside order dated 24.03.2011, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) taking cognizance against accused-respondent for offence under Sections 22(3) & 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, ‘PCPNDT Act’). 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition are that on behalf of petitioner-State, Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara laid a criminal complaint against respondent for offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 22, 23 & 25 of the PCPNDT Act. It is, inter-alia, averred in the complaint that on 29.06.2007, appropriate authority under the Act with four other incumbents inspected sonography centre of the accused respondent and found irregularities punishable under various Sections of the PCPNDT Act. The inspecting team, prima facie, found that accused-respondent has violated provision of Section 22(3) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 9(1), 9(4) & 10(1A) & 17(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘Rules of 1996’). Eventually, the team noticed that omission and commission of the accused-respondent tantamount to offence under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act. After completion of the inspection, a criminal complaint was filed against accused-respondent before learned trial Court on 15.03.2011. 3. Learned trial Court, after considering the complaint, took cognizance against respondent for offence under Sections 22(3) & 23 of the PCPNDT Act on 24.03.2011. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused-respondent approached learned lower revisional Court and the learned lower revisional Court, by a detailed order, set aside the cognizance as barred by limitation within the four corners of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. Learned lower revisional Court has also discussed the provision contained under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for extension of period of limitation in the matter but has found that no plausible reason has been assigned for extending period of limitation. As a matter of fact, the complaint itself is conspicuously silent about the cause of delay in laying the complaint. 5. As a matter of fact, the complaint itself is conspicuously silent about the cause of delay in laying the complaint. 5. True it is that, during the course of arguments, it is sought to be argued on behalf of prosecution that delay was procedural and therefore, the same be condoned and period of limitation be extended under Section 473 Cr.P.C. but the learned lower revisional Court declined to accept the said jejune plea of the prosecution in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent. 7. There remains no quarrel that PCPNDT Act is a laudable piece of Legislation, which is enacted with the solemn object to prohibit sex determination of foetus to curb this social menace but then the prosecuting agency is required to act promptly in such matters and cannot be given latitude for delay in launching the prosecution. A bare perusal of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that there is no allegation against the accused-respondent that his sonography centre was involved in determination of sex of foetus. The so-called violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules in displaying certain advertisements on the walls of centre, deficiencies in Form ‘F’ regarding registration number as well as serious omission in not displaying a board under the caption “Disclosure of Sex of a Foetus is Prohibited under the Law”, in the backdrop of aims and objects of the PCPNDT Act, are required to be viewed seriously and apparently violation of certain mandatory rules of the Rules of 1996 cannot be overlooked for effective and vigorous implementation of the provision of PCPNDT Act. However, strangely when the inspection was carried out in the year 2007 and the concerned Chief Medical & Health Officer noticed all these infirmities in the sonography centre of the accused-respondent then why promptness was not shown in launching prosecution against respondent by laying appropriate complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, is a matter of serious concern. However, strangely when the inspection was carried out in the year 2007 and the concerned Chief Medical & Health Officer noticed all these infirmities in the sonography centre of the accused-respondent then why promptness was not shown in launching prosecution against respondent by laying appropriate complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, is a matter of serious concern. Undeniably, the inspection was carried out on 29.06.2007 and the above quoted infirmities in the sonography centre were noticed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer but no endeavour was made to launch prosecution against the accused-respondent within the period of limitation, which is prescribed as three years as per Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. I am also aghast to observe that no reasons are assigned in the complaint itself about delay and for seeking extension of the period of limitation. The complaint, as a matter of fact, is conspicuously silent about delay in launching the prosecution after almost nine months. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has incorporated provision for extension of period in certain cases under Section 473 Cr.P.C. but for invoking the said provision, it is not only necessary for the complainant or the prosecution to satisfy the Court for the cause of delay but the reasons for seeking extension of time are also required to be furnished properly. Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Taradutt : AIR 2000 SC 297 , has held that a Magistrate, while invoking provision under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condoning delay, is required to record his satisfaction on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained and it is necessary to condone delay. I am afraid, no such reasons much less plausible reasons are forthcoming from the order passed by the learned trial Court. As in the instant case, in fact, no sincere endeavour was made by the prosecution to explain delay and seek extension of time, the oral submissions made on behalf of prosecution that delay has occasioned due to procedural wrangles, the learned lower revisional Court appropriately thwarted the same by upsetting order of learned trial Court. Therefore, in my view, the learned lower revisional Court was not rightly impressed by the submissions made on behalf of prosecution to extend the period of limitation in peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. Therefore, in my view, the learned lower revisional Court was not rightly impressed by the submissions made on behalf of prosecution to extend the period of limitation in peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. Upon examining correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by learned lower revisional Court, in my opinion, it has not committed any manifest error. Thus, I record my satisfaction about correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order and feel dissuaded to interfere with the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. Before parting, it may be observed that the authorised officer concerned in the matter has shown total callousness and apathy in discharge of his duties by laying complaint 9 months after expiry of period of limitation for such a serious offence. The upshot of above discussion is that I find no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed subject to observations made supra.