SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in S. T. No. 1 of 1968 on the file of the court of the District Magistrate (Judicial) Kottayam is the revision petitioner. He is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks for an offence under S. 39 read with s. 38 and 44 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act 1953 (Act IX of 1953 ). The allegation against him is that he practised allopathic medicine without getting necessary registration or enlistment from the Council of Modern medicine as required by S. 38 of the above Act, (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) which is punishable under S. 39.

(2.) THE fact that the petitioner practised modern medicine is more or less admitted. Proceeding against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of a written complaint Ext. P1 dated 1-2-1966 from pw. 2 Jacob abraham who is a registered medical practitioner. pw. 1 Registrar, T. C. Medical council, on receipt of the complaint asked the explanation of the petitioner on 2-3-1966. On 19-4-1966 the petitioner sent up his explanation which is contained in Ex. P4. THE petitioner has admitted his practice in Allopathy in his explanation. THEreafter Pwl made a local inspection of the petitioner's dispensary which he conducts at Kumarakam in the name and style of Sreedhar's Dispensary, and prepared Ext. P6 mahazar thereof. During the inspection the petitioner also gave in writing as per Ext. P5 a memorandum to the effect that he practised modern medicine. On completion of the investigation the Government was requested by the Executive Committee of the Council of Modern Medicine to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner Accordingly sanction was accorded by the Government as per G. O. Rt 3853/67/hld dated 22-9-1967. THE prosecution was laid by Pwl on these allegations on 11. 31968. Pw3 Sreedharan and Pw4 parameswaran Nair are examined to prove that the petitioner practised modern medicine.

(3.) ON a reading of S. 1 (3) it is clear that the relevant sections under which prosecution is launched have come into force with effect from a particular date. The prosecution did not let in any evidence to show that there had been material to establish that a Gazette notification was issued in compliance with the provisions of S. 1 (3 ). Even if there is any such gazette notification bringing into force the various sections of the Act, the court is not bound to make a judicial notice of the same on the strength of s. 57 (7) of the Evidence Act. But the question as to whether judicial notice of the Gazette publication can be taken or not does not seem to arise in this case since I find the prosecution did not produce any Gazette notification in the lower court or in this Court. However it may be argued that a Gazette notification is available and that the same shall be taken into consideration the question that requires to be considered in such a case is whether the court is bound to take judicial notice of the Gazette notification and say that the provisions of S. 1 (3) are complied with to enable the court to record a finding that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. I have already indicated that the production of the Gazette notification is not by itself sufficient compliance of the section. The prosecution has to put in that notification as an exhibit in the case to enable the court to record a finding that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused.