The cancellation of a registration certificate prohibits a person from practicing, and falsely pretending to be a registered practitioner constitutes an offense under the Act of 1952.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged FIR No. 0537/2021 dated 12.10.2021 registered at Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu under Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2019') and Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Precisely stated, facts germane are that on 20.09.2021, a complaint came to be filed by one Laxman Singh before Chief Medical & Health Officer, Churu, in furtherance whereof a committee was constituted, which gave a report dated 27.11.2020 and thus, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. According to the report, when members of the committee reached at the petitioner's clinic, it was found that a placard of 'Dr. Ramesh Sharma Ayurved Ratna' was on display.

3. During the inspection by the committee, the petitioner was not present, but he came after an hour and informed that he was giving ayurvedic treatment to the patients.

4. When the Investigating Officer went at petitioner's clinic, his registration certificate was not available and the petitioner stated that he is having registration No. 18967, issued by the Medical Board. He recorded statements of various persons; one of them provided a pen-drive containing videography evincing that the petitioner was treating the patients.

5. On thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952') so also under Section 420 of the Code, whereas offence under Section 34(2) of the Act of 2019 was not found to be made out against the petitioner.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed factual report dated 05.03.2022 for perusal of the Court.

7. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR in question has been filed by the complainant out of vengeance, which is false.

8. It was also argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner was not found distributing any medicine to the patient. He added that as a matter of fact the petitioner has left the profession 10-15 years ago.

9. It was also argued that as per Section 54 of the Act of 2019, an offence can be registered only on complaint made by the competent authority and no Court can take cognizance in relation to any offence under the Act of 2019.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

11. The Investigating Officer has collected enough material/evidence to show that the petitioner has been treating patients by ayurvedic system of medicine. The committee had also reported that there is a display board by which the petitioner claims himself to be an Ayurvedic Doctor and the same has been found correct by the Investigating Officer.

12. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's contention that at the time when the members of the committee reached petitioner's clinic, the petitioner was not found distributing any medicines. Maybe, the petitioner was not available and he came later (after about an hour), but his own statement noted in the report dated 27.11.2020 clearly shows that the petitioner was engaged in treating patients as an Ayurvedic Doctor.

13. Section 29 of the Act of 1952 levies penalty on an unregistered person who falsely pretends to be a registered practitioner or uses any title/words with his name to pretend that his name is entered in the register of registered practitioner.

14. Therefore, the fact that petitioner was not found distributing any medicine when the Investigating Officer went for the investigation has no relevance whatsoever to an offence under Section 29 of the Act of 1952. The mere fact that the petitioner had dis