GEORGE THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was practising dentistry at Erattupetta. He has no qualification or registration to practise dentistry. S.49 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (Central Act XVI of 1948) (for short the Act) prohibits a person from practising dentistry unless that person is a registered dentist, or a registered dental hygenist or a registered dental mechanic. On 11-6-1979, PW. 2, the Vice President of the Kerala Dental Council, inspected the place where the petitioner was practising dentistry in a clinic styled as "J.J. Dental Hospital", by using the degree of B.D.S. along with his name. Prosecution steps were initiated against him at the instance of the Registrar of the Kerala Dental Council. He was found guilty of the offence under S.49 of the Act. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(2.) Two points have been urged in this revision. The first is that the trial court took cognizance of the offence without satisfying that the conditions for taking cognizance of the offence under the Act have been fulfilled. The second point is that the complaint was filed after the period of limitation and hence, there is a bar under S.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). These points were raised before the appellate courts, but the learned Sessions Judge repelled those contentions, I shall now proceed to consider those points.

(3.) S.52 of the Act reads thus :