Suresh Sharma vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—Petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 130 dated 24.5.2013 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 474 IPC and Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar City. The present FIR was registered on the enquiry conducted by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, SSCS, Jalandhar, in which it is mentioned that petitioner has issued fitness certificates in respect of driving licences, whereas he is simply a retired pharmacist of Health Department and does not possess any medical degree. It is further mentioned that raid was conducted and during enquiry it is revealed that expired medicines worth Rs. 70,000-80,000/- has been recovered from his clinic and various stamps of different senior officers of the Health Department and ECG Machine used by the accused was also taken into possession which was being used by the accused for making forged medical certificates.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even according to the recommendation made by the Health Department and Deputy Commissioner, action has been proposed to be taken against the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Medical Council of India Act and Punjab Pharmacy Council Act, 1948. It is further submitted that complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be filed. The FIR cannot be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench authority of this court reported as Dr. Barinder Singh, President, Ludhiana Medical Welfare Association Vs. State of Punjab and others, and on the strength of same it is argued that the Division Bench of this court has also observed that in such type violation, complaint u/s 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act and under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can be filed. He has further contended that FIR in respect of offence u/s 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, is not maintainable.

It is further contended that during the enquiry, petitioner was present and all the equipments and stamps have been taken into possession.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the above said factual position.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen of 65 years. So, in view of the above circumstances, the application for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. The petitioner Suresh Sharma is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.:-

i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any.