Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 724 (MP)

Samiruddin v. State of M. P.

2023-08-25

PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against the order dated 7.9.021 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah, Mandleshwar in CRR No.6/221 has affirmed the charges framed against the applicants u/S 24 of MP Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1987), by JMFC, Barwah Distt, Mandleshwar in criminal case No.924/2019. 2. According to the prosecution story, on 29.8.2019 at around 11:00 AM, Chief Block Medical Officer, Barwah, Dr. Anuj Karkhur received information that an illegal medical camp is being carried on at Agrasen Dharmashala. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff Manish Mandloi (Pharmacist), Rajendra Sharma (Dresser) and Naib Tehsildar Rahul Solanki proceeded towards the aforesaid place and found that Dr. K.L. Patidar alongwith present applicants and other co-accused persons were examining the patients and selling medicines by carrying out an illegal medical camp in which some medicines were expired, physician sample and not for sale. Dr. K.L. Patidar and his companions/co-accused persons had no required registration and documents regarding carrying out aforesaid act. He had no bills of the aforesaid medicines. He had not taken permission for the camp from the Competent Authority and was carrying out medical camp illegally. Panchnama was prepared at the spot and written complaint was filed on 2.9.2019 by Chief Block Medical Officer, Barwah to SHO, P/S Barwah. On the same day, an FIR was lodged against the applicants and co-accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court had framed alleged charges against the applicants and co-accused persons, which is affirmed by Revisional Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence. If the prosecution story is taken as gospel truth, still no alleged offence is made out against the applicants. The FIR and statements of witnesses do not even contain a single allegation that the applicants were practicing medicine without there being any valid certification under the Act, 1987. The main accused in the matter Major Dr. Kanhaiyalal Patidar, who has been discharged from offence u/S 24 of the Act, 1987 by this Court vide order dated 9.11.2022 passed in MCRC No.59450/2021, but the only allegation against the present applicants were present at the site alongwith Dr. Patidar. Hence, in such circumstances, the applicants being innocent deserve to be discharged from the alleged charge. Kanhaiyalal Patidar, who has been discharged from offence u/S 24 of the Act, 1987 by this Court vide order dated 9.11.2022 passed in MCRC No.59450/2021, but the only allegation against the present applicants were present at the site alongwith Dr. Patidar. Hence, in such circumstances, the applicants being innocent deserve to be discharged from the alleged charge. Further, it is also submitted that from perusal of the charge-sheet, it is clear that entire action against co-accused Dr. Kanhaiyalal Patidar was taken due to there being personal grudge so held by the complainant against him and the applicants have been falsely implicated. This factum has also been observed by this Court while discharging Dr. Kanhaiyalal Patidar. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order passed by Revisional Court as well as the trial Court be set aside and applicants be discharged. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has objected the prayer and has supported the impugned charge. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 7. It appears from order dated 9.11.2022 passed by this Court in MCRC No.59450 of 2021, the main accused/Major Dr. Kanhaiyalal Patidar is already discharged from the charge and in Paragraph 12, this Court has observed as under:- “12. In the instant case, applicant's certificate of registration dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure- P/6) with M.P. Medical Council in terms of the provisions of Adhiniyam 1987 has been found genuine and can be said to be a material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality and ruled out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the applicant that he was examining the people without having certificate of registration with M.P. Medical Council in terms of the provisions of Adhiniyam 1987. Hence, charges framed against him under section 24 of Adhiniyam, 1987 is not made out against him. In view of the above, allowing the prosecution to continue in the case against the applicant would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, it is necessary to quash the proceedings against the applicant in order to serve the ends of justice. As such, the FIR in the instant case with respect to the applicant is liable to be quashed. 8. As per prosecution case, at the time of the incident Dr. As such, the FIR in the instant case with respect to the applicant is liable to be quashed. 8. As per prosecution case, at the time of the incident Dr. K.L. Patidar was the main accused and he was carrying out an illegal medical camp with help of his companions and the present applicants were working as medical representatives under his supervision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants were examining the people without having certificate of registration with MP Medical Council in term of the provisions of the Act, 1987. Hence, the charges framed against the petitioners u/S 24 of the Act, 1987 is not made out. In view of the above, allowing the prosecution to continue in the case against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, learned trial Court has erred in framing charge against the applicants in the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1987. Followed by the mistake by the Revisional Court in upholding the charges. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.2.2020 passed by trial Court and order dated 7.9.2021 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. The applicants are discharged from the offence punishable u/S 24 of Act, 1987.