The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused contravened the provisions of section 33 and section 36 of the MMP Act by practicing medicine without entitlement and adding titles implying qualification to practice medicine.

Abhay M. Thipsay, J.

1. On the basis of a police report, the respondent was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (for short ‘MMP Act’) and section 417 of the IPC read with section 511 thereof. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dapoli, after holding a trial, by a judgment and order dated 11th May 1993, acquitted the respondent of the said offences. The State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal and has therefore, after obtaining leave of this Court, filed the present appeal, challenging the correctness of the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Magistrate.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused.’ (except in the operative part of the order).

3. I have heard Mr. C.K. Pendse, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs. S. Gajare Dhumal, learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the record of the case. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment.

4. The prosecution case, as put forth, before the trial court may be stated thus : One Dattatraya Kulkarni (PW 1) used to perform magic shows by visiting different villages. In the month of December 1987 he had gone to village Gaotale. At that time, he saw one board of dispensary in which the name with "Dr. S.V. Walapkar" was written and degree ‘B.A.M.S’ was mentioned against the said name. On the board, registration number ‘13396’ was also written. Kulkarni suspected the board to be bogus. Kulkarni then made inquiries about the said registration number, and learnt that it had been given to one Dr. Laxman Satvi. Kulkarni then reported the matter to the police by writing a letter (Exhibit 9), addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri. This letter was sent by the Superintendent of Police to Hirachand Umbarkar (PW 5) who was, at the material time, working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Dapoli. Umbarkar made preliminary inquiries in the matter. The respondent was called in the course of the inquiry, and he produced three certificates before Umbarkar. The copies of the certificates were sent by Umbarkar to the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Medical Council’) for examination and opinion. The Medical Council replied that the certificates produced by the respondent were not recognised in Maharashtra. The communication sent by Medical Council also mentioned that the respondent was neither registered as a medical practitioner in Maharashtra nor was he entitled for registration. It was advised that action could be taken against him in respect of offences punishable under section 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act for illegally practicing medicine and for using the abbreviations "DR" and "B.A.M.S" with his name. Thereafter, Umbarkar lodged a report alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 33 of the MMP Act against the accused which was registered as First Information Report by Shashikant Sawant (PW 6), Police Head Constable who is the Investigating Officer in the matter.

5. The prosecution examined totally six witnesses during the trial. Kulkarni (PW 1), Umbarkar (PW 5) and Shashikant Sawant (PW 6) have already been referred to earlier. The other three witnesses Vikas Mhabdi (PW 2), Shashikant Pawar (PW3) and Vithoba Pawar (PW 4) are the patients who had taken medical treatment from the accused.

6. At the outset, some curious aspects of the matter must be mentioned. The first is that the allegation against the accused was that he had committed offences punishable under sections 33 and 36 of the MMP Act. However, the police report that was filed, though clearly mentioned that the accused has been practicing in a system of medicine without having the requisite qualification, or without having the necessary