IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

G K BHEEMAPPA S/O KURAPPA, R/O KUPPAGADDE VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANAVATTI POLICE STATION, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

ANUSHA V THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE Location: Hi gh ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS Court of HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE Karnataka JUDGMENT AND ORDER IN CRL.APPEAL.NO.68/2017 DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR, AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT IN CRL.CASE NO.248/2014 DATED 03.10.2017.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed by V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.68/2017 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Soraba, Shivamogga District, in C.C.no.248/2014, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri K Govindaraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, a complaint was registered when complainant along with two others received information about accused practicing Allopathic medicine without qualification. And when they visited accused at his place of practice on 14.08.2013, at 7 p.m. they found him in possession of Allopathic medicine. On enquiry, accused failed to provide particulars of his educational qualification and for practicing medicine. Therefore, it was alleged that petitioner was a quack doctor and guilty of offence punishable under Section 19 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 ('Act' for short).

3. On conclusion of investigation they filed charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 19 of Act. To substantiate charges, prosecution relied upon 11 witnesses. It was submitted except PW5 - designated officer and his assistant examined as PW6, no other witnesses supported prosecution case. It was submitted as per charge sheet and deposition of PW5 only fact established was possession of certain Allopathic medicines. There were no statement about administering medicines or prescribing them to patients. Therefore it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was practicing Allopathy at his residence. It was further submitted Section 21 of Act would not permit entry into residential building without having warrant issued by competent magistrate. Therefore search and seizure was illegal and accused would be entitled for acquittal.

4. It was further submitted while passing order of conviction, trial Court had referred to suggestion made on behalf of accused that he was practicing traditional Homeopathic medicine, which would not amount to admission of practice of Allopathy at his residence. Finding of trial Court that Section 34 of Act would prohibit operation of establishment without registration under provisions of Act and order of conviction confirmed by first appellate Court would be contrary to law, especially, when such charge was not put to petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. On said ground sought for allowing revision.

5. Smt.N Anitha Girish, learned HCGP, on other hand, opposed revision. It was submitted at time of raid by designated officer, there were about 10 patients at his residence. In presence of panchas allopathic medicines were seized. On enquiry, accused was unable to produce any educational qualification or registration for administering allopathic medicine. Therefore, it was established that petitioner was practicing as quack and