SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MUTTETUGAMA v. DHARMARATNA


Muttetugama V. Dharmaratna

1930 Present: Maartensz A. J.

MUTTETUGAMA v. DHARMARATNA.

440-p. C. Kalutara, 36,775.

Apothecary-Permitted to practise medicine- Use of the title " Doctor "-Ordinance No. 26 of 1927, s. 41 (a).

A Government apothecary, who is permitted to practise medicine and surgery under the Medical Ordinance, No. 26 of 1927, commits a breach of section 41 (a) of the Ordinance by using the title " Doctor ".

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Kalutara.

N.E. Weerasooria, for accused, appellant.

August 6,1930. MAARTENSZ A.J.-

The complaint against the accused in this case is that he described himself as " Doctor ", thereby implying a qualification to practise medicine or surgery by modern scientific methods, implying or tending to the belief that he was a medical practitioner registered under the Ordinance. It has been' established that the accused has not the necessary qualification to make that implication and that he is not a medical practitioner registered under the Ordinance.

Two subsidiary questions were argued in support of the appeal by the accused : (1) that he was entitled to plead autre fois acquit, as he had been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top