The State of Gujarat vs Vir Vasrao Shankarrao Patil

J.N. Bhatt, J.—The appellant State has challenged the acquittal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Surat, in Criminal Case No. 5152 of 1982 on 20-9-1983 by filing this appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (''Code'' for short). The respondent is the original accused who was charged in the Court of Learned" J.M.F.C. for the offence punishable u/s 30 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners'' Act, 1963 (''Act'' for short). According to the prosecution case, on 7-6-1982 one P.S.I. Bhagirathsinh Jashwantsingh had visited the residential premises of accused and carried out the search in presence of panchas. It is a prosecution version that in course of the search, medical case papers containing names of patients and prescriptions written by the accused and bills of medicines purchased by the accused were found. It was further alleged that several scheduled drugs, syringe for giving injection, instruments, usually, kept in dispensary and two certificates not given by any recognised Institute were found and seized in presence of panchas. As the respondent was found practising alopathy medicine without proper registration and as he was also running dispensary and giving unauthorisedly scheduled drugs, he was liable to be punished for the offence punishable u/s 30 of the Act.

Therefore, a complaint was lodged by PSI on 8-6-1982 against the accused. The accused was arrested. Thereafter, he was released on bail. An investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted. On appreciation of evidence on record and considering the facts of the case, the learned Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent accused was guilty of offence punishable u/s 30 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

Having examined the facts of the case and evidence on record, there appears to be no substance in the present appeal. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had practised alopathy and had given prescribed drugs without registration, is justified.

It would be necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Section 30 of the Act which reads as under:

Prohibition of medical practice by persons not registered or enlisted.-- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in any Special law for the time being in force, no person other than a medical practitioner whose name is entered in --

(i) the register or the list maintained under this Act;

(ii) the register or the list prepared and maintained under any law for the time being in force in relation to the qualifications and registration of Homoeopathic practitioners in any part of the State; or

(iii) the register prepared and maintained under the Bombay Medical Act 1912 Bom. 1912 the said Act as adapted and applied to the Saurashtra area of the State, or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in any part of the State; or

(vi) the Indian Medical Register prepared and maintained under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, CII 1956

shall practise any system of medicine in the State:

Provided that, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose and the payment of such fees as may be prescribed, the provisions of this section shall not apply to any class of persons, or to any area, as may be specified in such notification.

(2) Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall, on conviction, be punished --

(i) for a first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees;

(ii) for a second offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and

(iii) for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with the fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

Nothing is successfully pointed out which would warrant the interference with the impugned acquittal order. The material ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable u/s 30 of the Act are not established. The prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had practised alopathy and prescribed scheduled drugs without registration. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 30 of the Act is full of substance. There is no merit in the present appeal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.