A E SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Madras dismissing C. A. No. 498 of 1976 filed against the conviction of the revision petitioner by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in C, C, No. 4395 of 1975. A complaint was filed against the revision petitioner and two others by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C. I. D. Madras for offences punishable (under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916) on the allegation that the petitioner, who was A-l and his son who was A-2, started and conducted an institution called the "allopathic Medical Training Centre" and professed to impart "training in western Medical Science" and awarded certificates to candidates who were alleged to have undergone training in that institute and passed the final examination conducted by the institute. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. A-2 and A-3 were found not guilty and acquitted. This conviction and sentence of the first accused was confirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras and. therefore, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple. The facts admitted by the revision petitioner alone are sufficient to convict him of the offences aforesaid. The revision petitioner is himself a quack who has no manner of qualification to practise the allopathic system of medicine. The learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has a doctorate in Homoeopathy. There is no institution in this State that can confer a doctorate on any one in the Homoeopathic system of medicine. I take judicial notice of the fact that there are a lot of correspondence courses professing to impart a knowledge of the Homoeopathic system of medicine and also confer diplomas and degrees. They have no right to confer such diplomas or degrees. That is beside the point now. The revision petitioner, who has admittedly no manner of qualification to indulge in the practice of any system of medicine, has started an institution called the "allopathic Medical Training Centre" and appointed himself as the principal of the said institution and has been issuing certificates stating that the recipient of the certificate "has undergone and completed the training in modern (allopathic) medicine and is awarded this certificate in token of his/her having passed the final examination held in. . . . " The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner commenced his statement of the case by contending that the petitioner had started this institution for the purpose of "enriching" the knowledge of modern medicine among the practitioners of it". Subsequently he has been obliged to concede that the petitioner has no manner of qualification to impart education in any system of medicine. As observed by me already, the petitioner himself is a quack who has no manner of academic qualification to practice any system of medicine, though he appears to have done so before starting the institution and also when running the institution. If he still continues to practise medicine, the authorities concerned must take notice of that fact an J set the law in motion.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner has been issuing such certificates as aforesaid. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that by the issue of such certificates, the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act have not been contravened. It is unnecessary to go into the oral evidence in this case except to say that the petitioner has been running an institution called the "allopathic Medical Training centre" and has been collecting fees from unwary and gullible members of the public who want to practise allopathic medicine and has been granting them certificates after a period of alleged training in the allopathic system of medicine. The course of training would appear to be by correspondence. It would appear from the evidence of a witness examined on behalf of the accused as D. W. 1 that lectures were purported to be given on physiology, medicine and anatomy by doctors. Who are the doctors who gave such lectures has not been made clear by D. W. 1. Whether dissection also was done in the anatomy theatre of the medical centre conducted by the revision petitioner is not clear from the evidence in this case. Whether pathology, biology, surgery, pharmacology, gynaecology, obstetrics and other subjects are also included in the curriculam of this institution is not made clear by D. W. 1. There is no doubt about the fact that the revision petitioner has been playing hocus-pocus on the members of the gullible public to manufacture quacks like him and let them loose on the unwary public to practise the allopathic, system of medicine. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate issued by him does not specifically state that the holder of the certificate is entitled to practise. This certificate issued by the petitioner is in the same form as the certificate granted by the Regional Family Planning Training Centre after a course of training conducted by the centre. That certificate has been issued by the Director of Health Services and Family Planning and countersigned by the Principal, Regional Family Planning Training Centre, Eg-more, Madras. Even the degrees conferred by the University of Madras and other Universities of Bachelor of medicine and surgery do not state that they may practise medicine or surgery. What is stated is that, The Senate of the University of etc. makes known that Mr. . . has been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, having been certified by duly appointed examiners to be qualified to receive the same and having been by them placed in the. . . class at the examination held in the month of etc. And again. Given under the seal of the University. The certificate issued by the petitioner goes further and states that the person in whose favour the certificate is issued has not only passed the final examination but also completed his training in modern (allopathic) medicine. The reference to the passing of the final examination implies that many more examinations were held earlier before the final, examination was held and the certificate reads at the end that it was issued under "our hand and seal. " This certificate implies that the person in whose favour it has been issued is qualified to practise modern allopathic medicine.