J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-State has challenged the acquittal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Surat in Criminal Case No. 5152 of 1982 on 20-9-1983 by filing this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short ). ( 2 ) THE respondent is the original accused who was charged in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act 1963 (Act for short ). According to the prosecution case on 7 one P. S. I. Bhagirathsinh Jashwantsing had visited the residential premises of accused and carried out the search in presence of panchas. It is a prosecution version that in course of the search medical case papers containing names of patients and prescriptions written by the accused and bills of medicines purchased by the accused were found. It was further alleged that several scheduled drugs syringe for giving injection instrument usually kept in dispensary and two certificates not given by any recognised Institute were found and seized in presence of panchas. As the respondent was found practising alopathy medicine without proper registration and as he was also running dispensary and giving unauthorisedly scheduled drugs he was liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore a complaint was lodged by PSI on 8 against the accused. The accused was arrested. Thereafter he was released on bail. An investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation the accused was charge-sheeted. On appreciation of evidence on record and considering the facts of the case the learned Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) HAVING examined the facts of the case and evidence on record there appears to be substance in the present appeal. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had practised alopathy and had given prescribed drugs without registration is justified. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) HAVING examined the facts of the case and evidence on record there appears to be substance in the present appeal. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had practised alopathy and had given prescribed drugs without registration is justified. ( 4 ) IT would be necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Section 30 of the Act which reads as under:prohibition of medical practice by persons not registered or enlisted.- (i) Save otherwise expressly provided in any special law for the time being in force no person other than a. medical practitioner whose name is entered in (ii) the register or the list maintained under this Act; (ii) the register or the list prepared and maintained under any law for the time being in force in relation to the qualifications and registration of Homeopathic practitioners in any part of the States; or (iii) the register prepared and maintained under the Bombay Medical Act 1912 (Bom. VI of 1912) the said Act as adopted and applied to the Saurashtra area of the State or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in any part of the State; or (iv) the Indian Medical Register prepared and maintained under the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 (CH of 1956) shall practise any system of medicine in the State: provided that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette direct that subject to such conditions as it may deem at to impose and the payment of such fees as may be prescribed the provisions of this section shall not apply to any class of persons or to any area as may be specified in such notification. (2) Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall on conviction be punished- (i) for a first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; (ii) for a second offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and (iii) for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may to two years and with the fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. Nothing is successfully pointed out which would warrant the interference with the impugned acquittal order. Nothing is successfully pointed out which would warrant the interference with the impugned acquittal order. The material ingredients of the commissions of an offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act are not established. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had practised alopathy and prescribed scheduled drugs without registration. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Act is justified. There is no merit in the present appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed. (RPV) Appeal dismissed. .