ZABBAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all, 45 petitioners seek the quashing of the First Information Report registered at Police Station, Nuh, District Gurgaon, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 15(2)(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The allegations are that they are illegally practising in medicine, through they are not legally authorised to do so. The main point raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the punishment for such offence under Section 15(3) is imprisonment for one year or fine to the extent of Rs. 1,000/-. On this premise, it was contended that as per Schedule, Part II under the Criminal Procedure Code, such offence punishable to the extent of less than three years or with fine only, are categorized as non-cognizable offence, and, therefore, police cannot undertake investigation without permission from a Magistrate.

(2.) SINCE there is no specific provision in the Indian Medical Council Act regarding initiation of prosecution and investigation of the cases under Section 15(2) read with (3) of the Act, it follows that the statutory provision as given in Schedule, Part II of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable, and the First Information Report cannot be investigated by the police without order from the Magistrate having power to try such cases. In this case, I find that in CWP No. 1696 of 1997 decided on 10.12.1997 it was brought to the notice of this court that quite a large number of persons are practising in medicine without holding the valid or recognized degree. Therefore, the Secretary, and the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Haryana at Chandigarh, were directed to take necessary action against those persons who are practising medicine in allopathic and those persons who do not hold a recognized degree in medicine. Pursuant to that order, action was taken by filing the reports to the police against persons who are the petitioners before me. In view of that direction of the High Court, investigation in the matter is in progress. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is sufficient compliance of Clause 2 of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as initiation of the report to the police was done as per the direction of this Court. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the said direction by this Court did not further direct the police to investigate the case which is otherwise non-cognizable and cannot be investigated without the order of a Magistrate. Technically speaking, it would appear to be so, but on proper reading of the order passed by this Court, it clearly gives direction to initiate action including the action to investigate the case. In my opinion, the direction from the High Court in such cases should be interpreted and understood in a proper spirit and the purpose for which such direction was issued.

(3.) AT this stage, the counsel for the petitioners seek appropriate order so as to enable the petitioners to get bail in the event the police arrest them in this case. I find that the offence is bailable as per Schedule, Part II of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to bail as a matter of right if they offer bail before police.