K NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada in Crl.M.P.No.3771 of 2001 in C.C.No.1339 of 2000 dated 08-01-2002 whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge was dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 420, 336 IPC and Section 17(4) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short "the Central Act") alleging that accused who passed M.D. (Ayurvedic) from Banaras Hindu University, Banaras started Jeevan Eye Hospital in Eluru road and installed eye machinery. On reliable information L.W.7 along with L.Ws-18 to 20 and Mediators- LWs-15 and 16 visited the hospital of the petitioner and found that he is practicing as private medical practitionar doing eye surgeries and administering Allopathic medicines without registering as a Private Medical Practitioner under Section 17 of the Central Act, which is endanger to the human lives, thus liable for punishment under Sections 336, 420 IPC and Section 17(4) of the Central Act. On being charge sheeted petitioner filed the above petition seeking for discharge contending that on his obtaining P.G.degree in Ayurveda by undergoing required study and training in Shalakya in the year 1992 under renowned professors of Banaras Hindu university and the said course is study of Ayurveda and modern system of medicine. As per the syllabus fixed by the University, it includes training in surgical procedure and also eligible to administer treatment in modern medicine. Thus, he is entitled to give Allopathic medicines and can conduct eye surgeries, as he is a qualified practitioner. Further, in para-8 of Part-l II Section 4 of Gazette of I ndia dated 15-05-1995 it is published that in the specialties of Shalaya, Shalakya and Prasuti Tantra, the practical training should aim in elicity knowledge on the investigative procedures, techniques and surgical performance so that the candidate is capable to undertake independent work in surgical procedures and their management in the respective specialities. When the Investigation Officer who approached the Banaras Hindu University whether the petitioner is competent to administer Allopathic medicines and having got written clarification, the same has not been filed before the Court. In view of the clarification petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and the entire prosecution launched against him for the charges is groundless and he is liable to be discharged.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the accused has not registered either under the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 or underthe Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, therefore, the protection seeking by him under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Central Act do not have application. As such he has to be prosecuted for which he was charged and as on the date of arrest he has not enrolled as Private Medical Practitioner in either of the above Acts.