JUDGMENT :- Learned A.P.P. is ready with papers and has no objection for taking up the application for final disposal. 2. Heard the submissions made at the bar. 3. This application is seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 3051 of 2011, dated 31st December, 2011, registered with Police Station Beed (City), District Beed. The police registered the said crime/FIR against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 33 (2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The facts leading to the litigation are almost admitted. They are as under: 4. Applicant/accused is Diploma holder of Naturopathy. He obtained this diploma from certain institute at Nasik, which is recognized by the State of Maharashtra. On perusal of the diploma certificate, it is found that the applicant is not entitled to use drugs while practicing Naturopathy, which is a recognized stream of medicine. The applicant has a shop like premises, where he practices medicine in Naturopathy. 5. Complainant Dr.Sudam Mogle is the Resident Medical Officer at Beed. He has stated that on 31st December, 2011, he and his colleagues had a meeting with the Collector, District Beed. In this meeting, it was decided, he said, that they should take action against the bogus doctors (medical practitioners having no qualification and registration) practicing medicine in Beed district. Accordingly, on the same day, he visited the shop of the applicant alongwith his staff and police. The police as well as the complainant found the applicant present in his shop. It was further found that the shop like premises was a medical dispensary. In the said dispensary, the complainant as well as the police found medicines in about four bottles. In a plastic bag, the police also found bandages and injection syringe with injection needle. The police seized the articles found in the so called dispensary and then registered the offence. Panchnama was also recorded. The police then recorded the statements of all the persons who were present with the complainant at the time of visit. The police arrested the applicant, and the applicant, I am told, is waiting for the charge-sheet to be filed in the Court. 6. The learned A.P.P. produced before me a copy of the charge-sheet, which is now ready to be filed in the Court. The report submitted by the Investigation Officer is also produced before me. The police arrested the applicant, and the applicant, I am told, is waiting for the charge-sheet to be filed in the Court. 6. The learned A.P.P. produced before me a copy of the charge-sheet, which is now ready to be filed in the Court. The report submitted by the Investigation Officer is also produced before me. It shows that the investigation is almost over and the charge-sheet would be filed shortly. However, on perusal of the charge-sheet and the material collected against the applicant, I found that the case against the applicant is not at all tenable. There is no prima facie case to show that the applicant practiced medicine in violation of the provisions of Section 33 (2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. I formed this opinion for following reasons. 7. The complainant probably knew before hand that the applicant is practicing medicine by dispensing allopathy drugs to his patients. With this belief, the complainant went to see the applicant in his dispensary. Fortunately for the complainant, the applicant was found in his dispensary, but what was not found by the complainant and others is that the applicant was actually dispensing medicines/drugs to his patients. They simply found some skeletal paraphernalia in the dispensary to indicate that the applicant probably is dispensing drugs to his patients. However, until a patient had received drug or allopathy medicine from the applicant during treatment, the prosecution cannot show that the applicant had practiced medicine in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Why such a strict proof is required, is the question that can be asked. The answer lies in the peculiar provision of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Why such a strict proof is required, is the question that can be asked. The answer lies in the peculiar provision of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Section 2 (2) of the Act, reads as under:- "(2) For the purposes of Chapter VI, a person shall be deemed to practice any system of medicine who holds himself out as being able to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe medicine or other remedy or to give medicine for any ailment, disease, injury, pain, deformity or physical condition or who, by any advertisement, demonstration, exhibition or teaching offers or undertakes, by any means or method whatsoever to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe medicine or other remedy or to give medicine for any ailment, disease, injury, pain, deformity or physical condition:- Provided that, a person who,- (i) mechanically fits or sells lenses, artificial eyes, limbs or other apparatus or appliances; or (ii) is engaged in the mechanical examination of eyes for the purpose of constructing or adjusting spectacles, eye-glasses or lenses; or (iii) practices physiotherapy or electrotherapy or chiripody or naturopathy or hydropathy or yogic healing; or (iv) without personal gain furnishes medical treatment or does domestic administration of family remedies; or (v) being registered under the Dentists Act, 1948, limits his practice to the art of dentistry; or (vi) being a nurse, midwife or health visitor registered or enlisted under the Bombay Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1954, or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in the State or a Dai attends on a case of labour, shall not be deemed to practice medicine. Explanation.- In this sub-section, (i) "advertisement" includes any word, letter, notice, circular, picture, illustration, model, sign, placard, board, or other document and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light sound, smoke or other audible or visible representation; and (ii) "physiotherapy" means treatment of any ailment, disease, injury, pain, deformity or physical condition, by message or other physical means, but does not include bone-setting." 8. On careful perusal of above section, one finds that it is more or less definition of the term "medical practitioner". The schedule annexed to the Act provide various qualifications required for a person to get his name registered as medical practitioner under the provision, of the Act. On careful perusal of above section, one finds that it is more or less definition of the term "medical practitioner". The schedule annexed to the Act provide various qualifications required for a person to get his name registered as medical practitioner under the provision, of the Act. Sub-section (2) quoted above, particularly clause (iii) clearly mentions that a person may practice Naturopathy, but such practice is not practice of any system of medicine which requires registration under the Act. This provision clearly shows that there is possibility of some persons practicing physiotherapy or electrotherapy or chiripody or naturopathy or hydropathy or yogic healing, and yet they do not require registration under the Act. In view of this, the applicant here is certainly entitled to practice Naturopathy, but is not allowed to practice medicine as indicated by the above quoted provision. He is not entitled to use drugs during treatment of his patients. In other words, he cannot prescribe allopathy, homeopathy or ayurvedic medicines to his patients. So, unless the prosecution prima facie indicates that the applicant prescribed drugs or medicines to his patients, they cannot allege that he had violated the provisions of the Act. 9. In this background, the prosecution case prepared by the Investigating Officer is completely lacking the necessary material. The learned A.P.P. suggested that mere finding of medicine in the dispensary would raise presumption that the applicant was dispensing medicines found in his dispensary, and therefore, he said, there is a prima facie case. I am afraid, it is unacceptable though it appears quite attractive. Merely possessing drugs-may be in bulk quantity- would not be equivalent to dispensing those drugs to patients. So, a case of this nature requires a new approach for investigation. I need not suggest as to how such a case is investigated. But it occurred to me that sending decoy patient would be one of the methods for bringing prima facie material against bogus doctors. The application should therefore succeed. F.I.R. No. 3051 of 2011, dated 31st December, 2011, registered with Police Station Beed (City), District Beed, under Section 33 (2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, stands quashed. In view of above, criminal application stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.