Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2338
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.
Singaraj - Appellants
Vs.
Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti and Ors.- Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12745 of 2016, Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 6001 and 6002 of 2016
Decided On : 02-06-2020
For the Appellant Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Anand for R. Nireshkumar
For the Respondents: S. Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is that practicing allopathy medicine without proper registration under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, constitutes an offence under Section 15(3) of the Act.
Headnote:
Indian Medical Council Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Sections 336, 420 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 15(3), Section 2(b), 2(d), Section 2(f); Indian Penal Code - Section 336, Section 420 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, particularly Section 15(3) which prohibits practicing allopathy medicine without registration, and the definitions in Section 2(b), 2(d), and 2(f). The court also highlighted the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 336 and Section 420, and referred to legal principles from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharathi Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a qualified Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, was charged with practicing allopathy medicine without proper qualification. The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that he was competent to practice ayurvedic medicine and possession of allopathy medicine was not illegal. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was practicing allopathy medicine and seized allopathy medicine kits from his premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, not being a registered practitioner under the Indian Medical Council Act, was practicing allopathy medicine in contravention of Section 15(3) of the Act. The court also noted the presence of allopathy medicine kits in the petitioner's premises and the statements of witnesses supporting the prosecution's case. The court dismissed the petition and directed the trial to proceed.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's qualification to practice allopathy medicine, the legality of possessing allopathy medicine, and the sufficiency of evidence to proceed with trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, not being registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, was in contravention of Section 15(3) by practicing allopathy medicine. The presence of allopathy medicine kits and witness statements provided prima facie material to proceed with trial.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was dismissed, and the court directed the trial to be completed within a period of four months.
ORDER :
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.
1. This petition is filed by the accused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Srivilliputhur in C.C. No. 25 of 2016. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said criminal prosecution.
2. The charge against the petitioner is that on 10.01.2015 at about 01.00 p.m., Senior Residential Medical Officer of Government Hospital at Srivilliputhur on the instruction of the Deputy Director, Medical Services, Virudhunagar, had inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that he was practicing allopathy medicine without proper qualification. Allopathy medicines were found in the premises and the same was seized. A written complaint was given by the Senior Residential Medical Officer to the respondent police narrating the above facts. On his compliant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, has registered a case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Sections 336, 420 of IPC and taken up the investigation. On completion of the investigation, he has filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Srivilliputhur. The learned Magistrate prima facie being satisfied, has taken the final report on file assigning C.C. No. 25 of 2016 and caused notice to the petitioner to subject him for trial.
3. The petitioner herein, being aggrieved, has approached this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal prosecution on the ground that the petitioner is a Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, duly registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine. He is also the proprietor of Sri Govinda Madhi Medicals licensed to sell allopathy medicine. He is competent to practice ayurvedic medicine. As a owner of the medical shop with a licence to sell allopathy medicine, possession of allopathy medicine is not an illegal act. The investigating Officer without proper investigation, has taken the complaint given by the Senior Residential Medical Officer as gospel truth and had filed the final report without any investigation. Likewise, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had mechanically taken the final report on file and had caused notice.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not controverted any of the provision under which he is charged. There is no evidence placed by the prosecution to indicate that he was administering allopathy medicines to the patients posing himself as qualified allopathy medicine practitioner. To charge under section 336 of IPC, act of negligence and rashness ought to have been spoken by the witnesses. None of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., whisper about the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To prosecute a person under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act explicit act in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of Indian Medical Council is necessary. The case of the prosecution as found in the final report along with the statements of the witnesses read together, does not indicate any contravention. Therefore, even if the compliant and the final report are to be taken in entirety, it does not disclose any act of offence and will not end in conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, to prevent abuse of process of law, the prosecution against the petitioner has to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for the offence of cheating, there must be deception and inducement. In the absence of deception and inducement, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Likewise, when there is no allegation of an act done by the petitioner which likely to endanger the life, Section 336 of IPC cannot be invoked. Referring certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras certifying the petitioner as a qualified medical pr
