APHC010444172021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6513/2021 Between:

Lingudu Brahmanandam and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.851 of 2021, on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Cum I Additional Junior Civil Jude, Tadepalligudem registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 11(2) (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed charge sheet alleging that Sri Balaji Emergency and Multi Speciality Hospital, Kothibomma center, Tadepalligudem Town Management, is being run without proper hospital permission. The Vigilance & Enforcement Officials, basing on credible information, raided and inspected the said hospital in the presence of mediators. The building had G+3 floors: ground floor for the laboratory, casualty, and parking; 1^st floor for reception, pharmacy, and three doctors' OP rooms; 2^nd floor for ICU and special rooms; and 3^rd floor for a ward and six in- patient rooms. During the inspection, officials questioned the receptionist and accused Nos. 2 to 4, who stated that accused No. 1 took the premises on lease from Mr.Venkateswara Rao and set up the hospital, applied to DMHO for permission under Dr.Sri Siri’s name, which was still pending. They also stated that the hospital staff, consisting of 18 members, who were recruited by accused No.1, and the hospital management is under the supervision of accused No.4. The Vigilance team seized the records. The Vigilance officials sent an endorsement report to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari.

Based on these findings and confessional statements, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the crime.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are against accused No.1 only and mere filing of charge sheet against the petitioners does not disclose any clear violation by the petitioners. There is no sufficient evidence to support the charges against the petitioners, as they were only a part of the hospital management and did not have direct involvement in the operation of the hospital without permission. He also submits that the petitioners did not have intention to defraud or operate the hospital unlawfully and the petitioners were not responsible for not obtaining the hospital permissions from the DMHO office, which is still pending. In so far as the reliability and admissibility of the confessional statements of the other accused is concerned, it is contended that they could have been made under pressure, and cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the petitioners and seeks to allow the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 11(2) (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002.

5. On a perusal of the complaint, it can be understood that specific allegations are made against accused No.1, who is running the said hospital.

However, with regard to accused Nos.3 and 4, accused No.3 is only a medical officer in the said hospital and accused No.4 is running medical shop in the premises of the said hospital and they are no way concerned with non-

obtaining of re