KANHAIYALAL PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dtd. 7/9/2021, passed by the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Barwah, District Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in Cr. Rev.No.6/2021, whereby the order dtd. 20/2/2020 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwah, framing the charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sec. 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987 [in short Adhiniyam 1987], was affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 29/8/2021 at about 11.00 AM, Block Medical Officer, Block-Barwah, Complainant Dr. Anuj Karkhur received an information that an illegal health camp was being organized by the applicant at Agrasen Dharamshala, Barwah, wherein physician sample (not for sale) as well as expired medicines were given to the people illegally. Complainant alongwith his staff members namely Maneesh Mandloi, Rajendra Sharma and Naib Tehsildar Barwah, Rahul Solanki went there and found applicant alongwith other co-accused persons examining the people without having certificate of registration with M.P. Medical Council in terms of the provisions of Adhiniyam 1987 and giving to them physician sample (not for sale) as well as expired medicines. On being asked applicant and his associates co-accused persons did not produce their registration certificates. Complainant recovered the medicines found on the spot and made written complaint dtd. 2/9/2019 to SHO P.S., Barwah, on the basis of which FIR was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwah. Learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 20/2/2022, framed the charges against the applicant and co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 24 of Adhiniyam 1987, against which applicant filed criminal revision bearing No. 6/2021 before the Court of 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Barwah, which was dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 7/9/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant completed his M.B.B.S. degree in the month of November-December, 2006 from Armed Forces Medical College, Pune affiliated to Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik. After taking compulsory rotating internship training from 6/2/2007 to 5/2/2008, he registered his name in the Indian Medical Council Register as per registration certificate dtd. 22/2/2008. Applicant joined Indian Army in the year 2007 as a Medical Officer as a Short Service Commissioned Officer. In the year 2012 he was granted substantive promotion to the rank of Major and thereafter retired in the year 2014. He completed his Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy) from Armed Forces Medical College Pune and moved to Madhya Pradesh in the year 2018 and got himself registered with the M.P. Medical Council in terms of Adhiniyam 1987. He further got additional registration certificate in lieu of his additional qualification of M.D. He is operating skin clinic in the name of 'Mayra Skin and Asthetics Clinic' at Mhow. He further submits that complainant Dr. Anuj Karkhur unnecessarily interfered in the Health Camp organized by the applicant and co-accused persons with ulterior motive and when applicant objected, he made false complaint against the applicant. Since applicant is a registered medical practitioner and is duly registered with Indian Medical Council and M.P. Medical Council and is duly enrolled on Indian Medical Register and State Medical Register, offence punishable under Sec. 24 of Adhiniyam 1987, is not made out against him. Prosecution has intentionally not taken on record the certificates of the applicant. The registration certificate produced by the applicant has been verified by the respondent and of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, and can be considered at the initial stage as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi [20051 SCC 568]. The impugned order framing charge against the applicant is not sustainable, therefore, the same be quashed and the applicant be discharged from the charges framed against him.