STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIR VASRAO SHANKERRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State has challenged the acquittal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Surat in Criminal Case No. 5152 of 1982 on 20-9-1983 by filing this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short).

(2.) The respondent is the original accused who was charged in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act 1963 (Act for short). According to the prosecution case on 7 one P. S. I. Bhagirathsinh Jashwantsing had visited the residential premises of accused and carried out the search in presence of panchas. It is a prosecution version that in course of the search medical case papers containing names of patients and prescriptions written by the accused and bills of medicines purchased by the accused were found. It was further alleged that several scheduled drugs syringe for giving injection instrument usually kept in dispensary and two certificates not given by any recognised Institute were found and seized in presence of panchas. As the respondent was found practising alopathy medicine without proper registration and as he was also running dispensary and giving unauthorisedly scheduled drugs he was liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore a complaint was lodged by PSI on 8 against the accused. The accused was arrested. Thereafter he was released on bail. An investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation the accused was charge-sheeted. On appreciation of evidence on record and considering the facts of the case the learned Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Having examined the facts of the case and evidence on record there appears to be substance in the present appeal. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had practised alopathy and had given prescribed drugs without registration is justified.