The prosecution failed to substantiate claims of unauthorized practice, and the petitioner was exempt from registration for operating an electro-homeopathy clinic.

ORDER :

Anuradha Shukla, J.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the case has been heard finally.

This criminal revision has been filed to challenge the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2025 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.98/2024 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, whereby the conviction and sentence of petitioner under Section 8(a)(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rajopchar Sambandi Sthapanaye (Ragistrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, “the Act”) and Section 24 of the MADHYA PRADESH MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT , 1987 were upheld and the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, in RCT No.928/2017 dated 19.7.2024 was confirmed.

2. The facts of the case are that on 23.9.2017 at around 1:30 p.m. District Level Squad consisting of Dr. A. K. Tiwari, Chief Health & Medical Officer, Naib Tahsildar and others inspected the clinic and pathology centre under the name and style of Muskan Clinic and Pathology Centre run by the petitioner at Moraha “T” Junction (Tiraha), Satai Road, Chhatarpur; many allopathic medicines were recovered from that clinic which was being run without any registration; it was also found that petitioner, who was running this centre, was not having any decree or diploma to practice medicine nor was possessing any licence; on the basis of written complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and the matter was investigated. The trial followed after the filing of charge-sheet and petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court; he, though, preferred an appeal but that too was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated; he had studied electro- homoeopathy science and was duly issued a certificate for practicing medicine under that science; no allopathic medicines were recovered from the work place of petitioner; the alleged seizure has not been proved by testimony of any independent witness and only interested witnesses have supported the prosecution case; no signatures of the people of locality were obtained to suggest that seizure of any illegal commodity was made from the petitioner; there are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in the statements of interested prosecution witnesses. In the light of this, a request has been made to allow the criminal revision and acquit the petitioner.

4. State has opposed this criminal revision claiming that the conviction of petitioner by the two courts below and the sentence awarded to him under those judgments are just and legitimate and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and records of both the courts below have been perused.

6. To prove its case prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Dr. Sharad Chourasia (PW-1), Devendra Kumar Jain (PW-2), Jagdish Chandra Awasthi (PW-3), Anoop Kumar Tripathi (PW-4), Pushpendra Bajpai (PW- 5) and Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-6), who all were the members of a raiding party which on 23.09.2017 at around 01:30 p.m. had a raid on the clinic run by petitioner in the name of Muskan Clinic and Pathology Centre at Satai Road, Chhatarpur. According to prosecution, this team found that petitioner did not have his clinic registered under Section 3 of the Act, nor did he have any degree or diploma in regard to practicing medicine. Admittedly, petitioner had shown his registration certificate issued under the elec