ORDER 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 practitioner 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-III Section 4 of Gazette of India 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. 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 under the 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. 4. The lower Court after considering 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.12, namely, Kancherla Seshaiah as stated that he took his 2nd daughter-Kancherla Sunitha - L.W.13 to the accused for treatment of eye ailment and he prescribed medicines and gave treatment for a period of 9 months; subsequently the ailment was increased and the entire eye ball was turned into white and also caused headache and eye balls were completely closed, them they approached the accused and questioned him about the eye ailment, who stated them with feeble words and cheated them; on their approaching another doctor-Paladugu Krishna Murthy who admonished L.W.12 for prescribed medicines and after three months headache was reduced. Further, L.W.14 who is running Sandhya Eye Hospital at Suryaraopet and who was also worked as Member of Ophthalmology Academy and subsequently elected as Secretary of the Academy. During their tenure in the Academy, Indian Council recognized Allopathy Degree holders M.S., D.O. and the specialists who are the members of the said society are eligible for membership and eye specialists are used to attend the meeting every month to exchange their knowledge. The petitioner/accused attended for lectures in the meeting and after completion of the meeting petitioner was asked to show the original certificates on which petitioner sated that at present he has not possessed the originals and he will send after going to Gudivada. Subsequently he did not attend any meeting. The 161 statements of witnesses who were examined during investigation disclose that petitioner/accused styled himself as eye specialist and spoiled their eye vision and as per the statement of L.W.14 accused has no originals of his qualification for practicing Allopathy and to conduct surgery. Subsequently he did not attend any meeting. The 161 statements of witnesses who were examined during investigation disclose that petitioner/accused styled himself as eye specialist and spoiled their eye vision and as per the statement of L.W.14 accused has no originals of his qualification for practicing Allopathy and to conduct surgery. unless the petitioner registered himself in the State Register-or Central Register as per Section 17(1) of the Central Act and in the absence of production of enrollment certificate of his practicing Indian medicine in surgery of eye and for conducting surgeries giving modern treatment, prima facie, committed an offence. Therefore, he is not entitled to be discharged and accordingly dismissed discharge application. Hence, the present revision. 5. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the certificates which were seized are made available before the Magistrate along with charge sheet which clearly establish that his enrollment in the Andhra Board for Ayarveda which is constituted under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Practitioner Registration Act, 1956 (for short "the State Act") on 18-07-1988 and after such enrollment he studied M.D. in Ayurvedic Shalakya from Banaras Hindu University which has issued a certificate to the said effect and after completion of M.S.(Ayurvedic) in the year 1992 he started eye hospital, therefore, he deemed to be a Registered Medical Practitioner under Section 17 of the Central Act. As per Section 2m of the Central Act "State Register of Indian Medicine" means a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in-force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine. Once the State Act regulates such registration he is entitled to be protected, under Section 17(3) (b) of the Central Act. The entire prosecution launched against the petitioner is groundless and the same is liable to quashed. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while refuting the same would contend that petitioner is at liberty to produce all such evidence before the Magistrate which is yet to be scrutinized by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is not desirable to discharge the accused unless sufficient opportunity is given to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. 7. Before adverting to the above submissions it is relevant to note the list of documents, which were seized and produced along with charge sheet. Therefore, it is not desirable to discharge the accused unless sufficient opportunity is given to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. 7. Before adverting to the above submissions it is relevant to note the list of documents, which were seized and produced along with charge sheet. The provisional certificate of BAMS issued by the Nagarjuna University dated 15-07-1988 certifying that the petitioner passed B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree examination in October, 1987. The certificate of registration issued by the Registrar under the Andhra Board for Ayurveda dated 18-07-1988 wherein it was certified that the petitioner has been registered as Medical Practitioner under clause-A in the register of Medical Practitioners maintained by the Andhra Board for Ayurveda, Hyderabad. The instructions to the said certificate disclose the certificate is the property of the Board for Ayurveda and issued to Kalipindi Nagaraju in accordance with Rule 4(a) of Part-III of Andhra Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Practitioners Registration Rules, 1959. The certificate issued by the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University dated 04-08-1992 certifying that he was a student of 1989-92 joined M.D.(Ayr.) course which is recognized by the Central Council for Indian Medicine and obtained Post Graduate decree in M.D.(Ayurveda) Shalakya and secured highest marks and during the period he worked as Honorary Clinical Registrar in the Department and attended Shalakya O.P.D., I.P.D. and emergency duties in S.S. Hospital, Banaras Hindu University and also participated in clinical services and attended modern medicine for the various subjects as mentioned in the certificate. The original provisional certificate issued by the Banaras Hindu University certifying that the petitioner has passed M.D. (Ayr.) Shalakya in July, 1992 and certificate issued by the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Department of Opthamology certifying that he was deputed from the department of Shalya-Shalakya, I.M.S., Banaras Hindu University to the department of Opthamology, I.M.S., Banaras Hindu University for his thesis under the supervision of J.C. Mathur, professor and Head of Department of Opthamology and during the said period he regularly attended the OPD, performed duties in the indoor section of the department and gained proficiency in major and minor eye operations including micro surgery. 8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be considered in the light of various statutory provisions under the Central Act as well as State Act. 9. 8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be considered in the light of various statutory provisions under the Central Act as well as State Act. 9. Section 2(e) of the Central Act defines 'Indian Medicine' which means the system of Indian medicine commonly known as Astang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. Section 2(j) defines 'State Register of Indian Medicine' which means a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine. Section 17(1) of the Central Act prescribes the rights of persons possessing qualifications, which reads thus: (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. Sub-Section (2), which is crucial, reads as under: (2) Save as provided in Section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possess a recognized medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine:- (a) x x x x x (b) shall practice Indian medicine in any State; Sub-section (3) (b) of Section 17 envisages as an exception, which reads as under: (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect, (a) x x x x x (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine; Sub-section (4) is a penal provision where any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 10. It is not in dispute that State Government has incorporated State Act to regulate the qualification and to provide for the registration of practitioners of Ayurvedic and Homeopathic systems of medicine in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 11. 10. It is not in dispute that State Government has incorporated State Act to regulate the qualification and to provide for the registration of practitioners of Ayurvedic and Homeopathic systems of medicine in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 11. Section 2(i) of the State Act defines 'Ayurvedic system of medicine' which means Ayurvedic system including Siddha, Unani, Tibbi and prakruti systems. Section 2 (xiii) defines 'registered practitioner' which means a practitioner whose name is for the time being entered in the "Register of practitioners. 12. Chapter IV Section 27 of the State Act deals with registration of practitioners, which reads as under: 27(1) Every person- (a) who possess any degree, diploma, licence, or certificate, conferred, granted or issued by a recognized institution specified in Schedule I or by any other institution recognized under Section 24. (b) x x x x x (c) x x x x x (d) x x x x x (e) x x x x x Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 27 of the State Act envisages every person, whose name has been entered in the Register of practitioners shall be issued a certificate of registration in the prescribed form under the hand and seal of the Registrar. Section 39 of the State Act deals with penalty for practice by unregistered practitioners which reads thus: (1) After the expiry of five years from the commencement of this Act, no person other than a registered practitioner shall practise the Ayurvedic system of medicine or the homeopathic system of medicine, or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practicing, or as being prepared to practise such system. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees or with both for the first contravention, and with imprisonment which may extent to 'six months or with fine which may extent to' one thousand rupees or with both for every subsequent contravention. Section 42 of the State Act deals with taking cognizance of offences" which reads thus: (1) x x x x x (2) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint in writing of an officer empowered by the Government in this behalf. 13. Section 42 of the State Act deals with taking cognizance of offences" which reads thus: (1) x x x x x (2) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint in writing of an officer empowered by the Government in this behalf. 13. Rules were framed under the State Act known as "The Andhra Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Practitioners Registration Rules, 1959" (hereinafter called as "the Rules"). Part-III deals with Maintenance of Registers. Rule 4 envisages granting of certificate in Form VIII-A. 14. Though sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Central Act provides that no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognized medical qualification is entitled to practice, the said provision does not affect the right of practitioner of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian Medicine in any State. 15. The notification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine reads as under: "No.8.5/96.Ay.(MM) dt. 30-10-1996 NOTIFICATION As per provision under Section 2(1) of the Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (48 of 1970) hereby Central Council of Indian Medicine notifies that 'Institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian System of Medicine (Ayurved, Siddha & Unani) are eligible to practice Indian system of Medicine and Modern Medicine including surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the syllabi of via courses of I.S.M. prescribed by Central Council of Medicine after approval of the Govt. of India. The meaning of the word 'Modern medicine' (Advances) means advances made in various branches of Modern Scientific Medicine, Clinical, non-clinical Bio-Sciences also Technological innovations made from time to time and notify that the courses and curriculum conducted and recognized by the Central Council of Medicine are supplemented with such modern advances. Further it is clarified that the right of practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine to practice Modern Scientific System of medicine (Allopathic Medicine) are protected under Section 17(3)(b) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. Sd. XXXXX (R.K.Jain) Registrar -cum-Secretary "Central Council of Indian Medicine" 16. Once the petitioner enrolled as a Medical Practitioner under the State Act to which a certificate No.19897 dt. Sd. XXXXX (R.K.Jain) Registrar -cum-Secretary "Central Council of Indian Medicine" 16. Once the petitioner enrolled as a Medical Practitioner under the State Act to which a certificate No.19897 dt. 18-07-1988 was issued by the Registrar, Andhra Board for Ayurveda under Clause-A, the allegation that the petitioner contravened provisions of Section 17 of the Central Act without registering as Private Medical Practitioner he is not competent to do eye surgeries and administer allopathic medicines is contrary to provisions of sub-section (3) of Section17. Once he is registered under the State Act the prohibition contemplated under Section 17(2)(a) will be redundant. Once it is clarified by the Registrar, CCIM through notification, referred to above, the right of practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine to practice Modern Scientific System of Medicine (Allopathic Medicine) are protected under Section 17(3)(b) of the Central Act, petitioner has not contravened any of the provisions of the Central Act, since he is entitled to practice in Modern Scientific System of Medicine once he got himself registered under the State Act. 17. In view of the same, the charge, which is framed against the petitioner, is groundless. The learned Magistrate without considering the Registration Certificate issued under the State Act dated 18-07-1988 and the original provisional certificate issued by the Nagarjuna University dated 15-07-1988 erroneously held that the petitioner did not produce any enrollment certificate which are required under Section 17(2) of the Central Act for practicing Indian medicine and conducting eye surgeries and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Once the charge framed against the petitioner is groundless, it is the right of the accused to get himself discharged from all the charges. 18. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is set aside and Criminal Revision is allowed. Petitioner is discharged of all the charges.