EMPEROR Vs. JOSEPH DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision from the decision of Mr. Ahmed I. Rahimtoola, Presidency Magistrate of the Sixth Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, who convicted the applicant under Sections 32 and 34 of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act, 1938, and inflicted upon him a line of Rs. 25.The question involved is of considerable Importance, since we are informed that it may affect the position of a number of persons practising medicine in this Province.

(2.) PART III of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act in which both Sections 32 and 34 appear came into operation on November 1, 1944. Section 34 provides : Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of Section 32 shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100 for the first offence and to RS. 500 for every subsequent offence after his conviction for such first offence. And Section 32 is as follows: No person other than (i) a practitioner registered under PART II of this Act or (ii) a medical practitioner registered under the Bombay Medical Act, 1912, or (iii) a person whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 18 shall practise or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising for personal gain any system of medicine, surgery or midwifery : Provided that the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any class of persons or in any specified area.

(3.) BEFORE referring to the facts of this case and to the Bombay Medical Act, 1912, attention should be directed to the fact that in the 1938 Act itself a distinction is drawn between a person who is described as being "entitled to have his name entered in the register" [see Sub-section 16 (1 ). ] a person who is "qualified for registration" [see Sub-section 18 (b)] on the one hand and a "registered practitioner" (see Sections 19 and 20 of the Act) on the other.