VIMLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing the application of Dr. Vimla who wanted a decision of the Court that the prosecution which has been launched against her under section 6-A of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, could not proceed owing to certain inherent defects of a legal character.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case for the prosecution is that Dr. Vimla had held out that she possessed a Degree of M. M. S. (London) which she did not have. Indeed there is no such Degree as M. M. S. (London) at all. Under sub-section (1) of section 6-A of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916. "no person shall add to his name any title, descriptions letters or abbreviations which imply that he holds a degree, diploma, licence or certificate as his qualification to practice any system of medicine unless, he actually holds such degree, diploma, licence or certificate;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Admittedly, the petitioner Dr. Vimla does not possess the degree of M. M. S. (London), Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that no such degree being in existence, it is no offence to add it to her name. This argument, in my opinion, is without any substance. The purpose of the Indian Medical Degrees Act is to regulate the grant of titles implying qualifications in Western medical science and the assumption and use by unqualified persons of such titles. The gist of the offence is the representation that the person concerned should be using the unauthorised title which implies that she holds a certain medical qualification. The word 'imply' to my mind provides the key to the construction of this provision. The existence of a diploma or degree is not an essential pre-requisite of the offence. It is not necessary that a person should falsely assume that he is the holder of a recognized diploma or degree. The intendment of the Act is also to stop the use of spurious degrees or diplomas. To a layman it may well appear that M. M. S. (London) is actually a recognised decree of London, and the Legislature undoubtedly intended to prevent dissemination of such deception. It cannot, therefore, be said, as has been argued by Mr. Gupta, that no offence can be said to be committed for a mere user of the words M. M. S. (London) as no such degree is known to exist.

(3.) EQUALLY devoid of force is the second contention of the learned counsel that the complaint ought to have been brought by an authority other than the State Government. Section 7 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 lays down that