Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 916 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-16

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged FIR No. 0537/2021 dated 12.10.2021 registered at Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu under Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2019') and Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Precisely stated, facts germane are that on 20.09.2021, a complaint came to be filed by one Laxman Singh before Chief Medical & Health Officer, Churu, in furtherance whereof a committee was constituted, which gave a report dated 27.11.2020 and thus, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. According to the report, when members of the committee reached at the petitioner's clinic, it was found that a placard of 'Dr. Ramesh Sharma Ayurved Ratna' was on display. 3. During the inspection by the committee, the petitioner was not present, but he came after an hour and informed that he was giving ayurvedic treatment to the patients. 4. When the Investigating Officer went at petitioner's clinic, his registration certificate was not available and the petitioner stated that he is having registration No. 18967, issued by the Medical Board. He recorded statements of various persons; one of them provided a pen-drive containing videography evincing that the petitioner was treating the patients. 5. On thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952') so also under Section 420 of the Code, whereas offence under Section 34(2) of the Act of 2019 was not found to be made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed factual report dated 05.03.2022 for perusal of the Court. 7. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR in question has been filed by the complainant out of vengeance, which is false. 8. It was also argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner was not found distributing any medicine to the patient. He added that as a matter of fact the petitioner has left the profession 10-15 years ago. 9. 8. It was also argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner was not found distributing any medicine to the patient. He added that as a matter of fact the petitioner has left the profession 10-15 years ago. 9. It was also argued that as per Section 54 of the Act of 2019, an offence can be registered only on complaint made by the competent authority and no Court can take cognizance in relation to any offence under the Act of 2019. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 11. The Investigating Officer has collected enough material/evidence to show that the petitioner has been treating patients by ayurvedic system of medicine. The committee had also reported that there is a display board by which the petitioner claims himself to be an Ayurvedic Doctor and the same has been found correct by the Investigating Officer. 12. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's contention that at the time when the members of the committee reached petitioner's clinic, the petitioner was not found distributing any medicines. Maybe, the petitioner was not available and he came later (after about an hour), but his own statement noted in the report dated 27.11.2020 clearly shows that the petitioner was engaged in treating patients as an Ayurvedic Doctor. 13. Section 29 of the Act of 1952 levies penalty on an unregistered person who falsely pretends to be a registered practitioner or uses any title/words with his name to pretend that his name is entered in the register of registered practitioner. 14. Therefore, the fact that petitioner was not found distributing any medicine when the Investigating Officer went for the investigation has no relevance whatsoever to an offence under Section 29 of the Act of 1952. The mere fact that the petitioner had displayed the title/words "Ayurveda Ratna" with his name on a placard is enough to make out a prima facie case under Section 29 of the Act of 1952. 15. The mere fact that the petitioner had displayed the title/words "Ayurveda Ratna" with his name on a placard is enough to make out a prima facie case under Section 29 of the Act of 1952. 15. Turning to the petitioner's contention that as per Section 54 of the Act of 2019, cognizance cannot be taken by any Court in the absence of a complaint filed by the competent authority, this Court is of the view that petitioner's reliance on this provision is premature and grossly misplaced. Further, in any case, this is a matter to be decided by the trial Court at the stage of taking cognizance. 16. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not having any certificate of registration and his certificate of registration had its validity only till 1996, whereafter pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 01.06.2010, his certificate stood cancelled. 17. In view of the fact that certificate was cancelled on 01.06.2010, the petitioner could not have indulged in treating the patients. The said act of petitioner not only amounts to cheating the patients, but it is also a clear jolt to the system. A person like the petitioner is playing with the health of innocent persons by branding himself as an ayurvedic practitioner. 18. This Court does not find any substance in the present misc. petition, for which the same is dismissed. 19. It may be noted that even at the outset this Court was not inclined to interfere and had observed that it was not a case of quashing of FIR, yet learned counsel insisted upon and put forth a number of arguments and requested the Court to deal with. Hence, the above findings. The same be treated to be prima-facie finding. The trial Court to do independent assessment of oral and ocular evidence without being influenced by whatever has been observed hereinabove. 20. Stay application too stands dismissed.