The court affirmed the conviction for unauthorized medical practice but modified the sentence due to prolonged legal proceedings and the petitioner's age and health.

Order :

1. The instant revision petition is pending before this Court since the year 2004 which arose out of the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.1999 which is relatable to an incident which took place on 17.05.1985.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial for committing an offence under Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 (B), 18-A/28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and so also under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 . He was sentenced to serve one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause with some lesser punishment for lesser offences vide the judgment dated 23.02.1999.

3. Aggrieved of the above, he preferred an appeal. The learned Court of Appeal made a further examination of the material and appreciated legal and factual aspects of the case and then concurred with the opinion of the learned trial Court and, thus, dismissed the appeal vide the judgment dated 10.06.2004.

4. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner made a challenge to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Court of Appeal. I have minutely gone through the niceties of the matter. It is the case of the prosecution that the Drug Inspector - Ajay Kumar Bhat submitted a criminal complaint against the petitioner on 17.05.1985 alleging inter alia that upon receipt of an information regarding unauthorized drug practice by the petitioner, he in the presence of Chief Medical Health Officer inspected the clinic of the petitioner on 15.02.1985. The petitioner was not there and his brother-in-law Mangal Singh was there. He was having registration under Ayurvedic Medicine, Sidhi and Naturopathy but was not registered under the State of Rajasthan for doing medico practice in Alopathy. Medicines were collected from his clinic and whereafter the investigation was conducted and then he was charge-sheeted. The learned trial Court hold the petitioner guilty by observing that he was running clinic and prescribing Alopathy medicines.

5. Shri Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he would not press on the finding of guilt instead thereof he would implore for reduction of the sentence owing to the reason of long pendency and the nature of allegations.

6. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have gone through the record and feels that there is no ground for making interference in a reasoned finding of conviction which affirmed by the Court of Appeal, thus, the instant revision petition is dismissed to the extent it relates to the challenge of conviction of the petitioner.

7. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court feels that the incident took place in the year 1984. There was no grievance of any individual who caused harm owing to the act of the accused. The petitioner had faced rigor of trial for 14 years and then waited for disposal of appeal for five years and whereafter before this Court for further 20 years. This Court feels that the mental agony the petitioner faced for last 30 years would be proportionate to the criminal act committed by him. Further it is observed that the petitioner has become very old person and as it is apprised to this Court that he is ailing with some diseases, he had remained in custody for few days during trial and for few days after the judgment of Appellate Court, thus, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the family background of the petitioner, the area within which he was practising medicine and the fact that he faced myrid difficulties in last 30 years, I feel it aprpropriate to modify the order of sentence.

8. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction is affirmed but the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the learned Court of Appeal is modified to the extent that the period undergone by the petitioner would be sufficient and commens