The duty of the prosecution to provide concrete and reliable evidence to support the charges, and the need for sufficient materials to form a presumptive opinion regarding the alleged offences.

Neither any property nor valuable security is involved in this case to attract Section 420 of I.P.C. Despite it, charge sheet has been filed under Section 420 IPC. Additionally, charge sheet has been filed imputing charges under Section 368 of I.P.C., and Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997, as against the three accused persons. viz. Yusuf Ali, Santosh Kumar and Rajamarthandam.

2. Dr.Vetrivel, the Secretary of Indian Medical Association, Tiruchendur District is the defacto complainant. He preferred a complaint against those three accused persons alleging that the three accused persons were running a hospital at Udangudi in the name of Yusuf Hospital and that they were treating and dispensing English medicines to patients for which they were lacking in required qualification and authorisation. After investigation, the respondent Police has filed the final report against the accused persons under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997, and under Sections 268 and 420 IPC.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would represent that the first accused -Yusuf Ali died, and the third accused was dropped at the time of filing of charge sheet. The only person on record is the second accused-Santosh Kumar.

4. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge of him from the charges levelled against him, before the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2007. The Trial Court, by the order dated 16.03.2007, dismissed the petition giving a finding that there are prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused. Challenging the dismissal of the discharge petition, this revision petition has been filed.

5. The power of the Magistrate to discharge the accused as provided under Section 239 Cr.P.C., reads as under:

“239. When accused shall be discharged.-If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”

6. After all these examinations, if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that charges are groundless as against the accused persons, the Magistrate has to discharge the accused. In this case, the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there are materials to frame charge against the accused.

7. In order to appreciate the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is necessary to look into the basic facts of this case.

8. According to the case of the prosecution, the first accused Yusif Ali was running a private clinical establishment in violation of Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997. The accused 1 and 2 are stated to have been practising allopathy without any qualification and authorisation. The third accused is stated to have been selling medicines under prescriptions of the unauthorised persons, viz. accused 1 and 2.

9. The relevant provisions under the 'Act' reads as under:

(a) Section 3 providing for registration of the private clinical establishment, reads:

“(1) On or after the date of commencement of this Act, no person shall carry on any private clinical establishment unless such private clinical establishment is duly registered under this Act:

Provided that every private clinical establishment is existence on the date of the commencement of this Act shall apply for registration within three months from that date:

Provided further that every private clinical establishment in existence on the date of the commencement of this Act shall cease to carry on its business on the expiry of four months from that date unless such private clinical establishment ha