SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Ker) 76

E.K.MOIDU
SREEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Accused in S.T. No.1 of 1968 on the file of the court of the District Magistrate (Judicial) Kottayam is the revision petitioner. He is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks for an offence under S.39 read with S.38 and 44 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act 1953 (Act IX of 1953). The allegation against him is that he practised allopathic medicine without getting necessary registration or enlistment from the Council of Modern Medicine as required by S.38 of the above Act, (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) which is punishable under S.39.

2. The fact that the petitioner practised modern medicine is more or less admitted. Proceeding against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of a written complaint Ext. P1 dated 1-2-1966 from pw. 2 Jacob Abraham who is a registered medical practitioner. pw.1 Registrar, T.C. Medical Council, on receipt of the complaint asked the explanation of the petitioner on 2-3-1966. On 19-4-1966 the petitioner sent up his explanation which is contained in Ex.P4. The petitioner has admitted his practice in Allopathy in his explanation. Th



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top