The court affirmed that a medical practitioner must have appropriate qualifications and that allegations of practicing medicine without a license warrant prosecution under relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.)

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. The Criminal Petition No.538/2020 was filed praying for quashing the FIR relating to Tezpur P.S. Case No.1674/2020. During pendency of this criminal petition, police filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the Criminal Petition No.8/2023 was filed praying for quashing the charge sheet in respect of PR Case No.1058/2022 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate at Tezpur. Therefore, both the cases are taken up for disposal as both arise out of the same FIR.

3. One woman named Mrs. Rahila Begum had lodged an FIR before police alleging, inter alia, that the present petitioner Dr. Mazaharul Sultan insisted upon her, to take treatment in his clinic. There were some other allegations against some other persons in the said FIR. The informant Mrs. Rahila Begum alleged that the present petitioner along with some other persons had ruined her life. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered the Tezpur P.S. Case No.1506/2020.

4. During investigation of the said case, the Investigating Officer (the Respondent No.2) found that Dr. Mazaharul Sultan was running a medical clinic on the basis of some forged and fake certificates because the said petitioner could not produce any legal documents in support of his profession. The Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner Dr. Mazaharul Sultan was running a small hospital with facilities to keep patients. According to the Respondent No.2, the petitioner Dr. Mazaharul Sultan was running that business on the basis of forged documents. The petitioner Dr. Mazaharul Sultan was allegedly pretending to be an MBBS doctor.

5. The learned counsel Mr. Mahanta confined his arguments within the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Mr. Mahanta submitted that Section 32 of the said Act of 1940 prescribes that no prosecution shall be instituted except by an Inspector or any Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in writing in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or Special Order made in this behalf by that Government or the person aggrieved or a recognized consumer association. Section 21 of the said Act defines the word Inspectors as mentioned in Section 32 . According to Mr. Mahanta, a Sub-Inspector of Police is not within the meaning of the word “Inspector” as mentioned in Section 21 of the said Act of 1940.

6. The learned counsel Mr. Parasar has submitted that in this case Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not applicable. According to Mr. Parasar, this Act applies to import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides.

8. At this stage, let us go through the preamble of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It reads as under:

“An Act to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs [and cosmetics].

WHEREAS it is expedient to regulate the [import, manufacture, distribution and sale] of drugs [and cosmetics];

AND WHEREAS the Legislatures of all the Provinces have passed resolutions in terms of Section 103 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, c. 2), in relation to such of the above-mentioned matters and matters ancillary thereto as are enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the said Act:”

9. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was amended in the year 1982. The statement of objects and reasons of amending the Act of 1940 says that Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 regulates the import into, manufacture, dist