Prima facie evidence of practicing allopathy without the requisite qualification constitutes an offence under Section 24 of the Adhiniyam, 1987.

1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 7/6/2017 passed by the JMFC, Jobat, District Alirajpur in Criminal Case No.506/2017, by which the charge has been framed under Section 24 of the Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 (in short “the Adhiniyam of 1987”) and Section 420 of IPC.

2. Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even if the entire prosecution allegations are accepted, then no offence under Section 24 of the Adhiniyam, 1987 is made out. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 420 of IPC would also be made out.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that according to the prosecution case, the complaint was made against the applicant that he is illegally running his clinic and is practicing on allopathy, although he is not holding the requisite degree and he is holding the degree of BHMS. Accordingly, a search was carried out in the clinic of applicant where apart from homeopathic medicines, 16 cartoons of allopathic medicines were also seized. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the applicant is not holding MBBS degree and in utter violation of Section 15 (2) of Medical Council Act, he was practicing on allopathy side and, therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charge under Section 24 of the Adhiniyam, 1987 and under Section 420 of IPC.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Before considering the facts of the case, it would be necessary to consider the scope of interference at the stage of framing of charges.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-

“14. The Magistrate, in exercise of its power under Section 190 Cr.P.C., can refuse to take cognizance if the material on record warrants so. The Magistrate must, in such a case, be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., if any, do not make out any offence. At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable, or can be relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The Magistrate is not competent to weigh the evidence and the balance of probability in the case.”

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th. CBI) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683 has held as under :-

“20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.”

8. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in 2010 CRI. L.J. 1427 has held as Under :-

“10. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Pos