Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtfa v. Aruna Harischandra Patil

Bombay HC28 Nov 2006APEAL/49/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal appeals, the High Court of Bombay confirmed the conviction of Aruna Patil for impersonating a gynaecologist and cheating a bank, dismissing the State's appeal against acquittal on other charges. The Court modified the prison term for the cheating charge to run concurrently.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence for Section 420 IPC reduced to 3 years imprisonment to run concurrently with other terms; acquittal on other charges maintained.

The State of Maharashtfa Vs Aruna… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 656 OF 1989

¶4

Aruna Harishchandra Patil,	)
residing at Sukhashanti	)
Nursing Home, Bhyander,	)
Dist.Thane at present in Jail. )		... Appellant.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra.	)	... Respondent.
Shri P.P.Hudlikar for the Appellant.
Shri D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the Respondent.

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 1990

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.		... Appellant.
Versus.
Aruna Harishchandra Patil, )
aged 40, residing at	)
Sukhashanti Nursing Home,	)
Bhayander, Dist.Thane.	)	... Respondent.
Shri D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the Appellant.
Shri P.P.Hudlikar for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

¶9

DATED : 27th & 28th November, 2006.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT.

¶11

This is a case where the trial court has held

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

that	the Accused No.1 practiced as a gyna	ecologist
though	she did not possess any qualification and	though
she	was not registered as a medical practitioner	under
the	Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.	Heard
the	learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant	in
Appeal	No.656 of 1989 and the learned A.P.P. for	the
State.	The Appellant in Appeal No.656 of 1989 is	the
original	Accused No.1 Aruna Harishchandra	Patil
(hereinafter	referred to as the Accsed No.1 or	the
Appellant).	She has been convicted for the	offences
punishable	under section 419 and 420 of the Indian	Penal
Code	and for the offence under section 33 of	the
Maharashtra	Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. She	has
been	acquitted of offences alleged under sections	468,
465,	471 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. For	the
offence	under section 419 of the Penal Code,	the
Appellant	has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for	3
years	and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default	of
payment	of fine, she has been directed to	undergo
further	R.I. for six months. For the offence	under
section	420 of the Penal Code, the Appellant	is
sentenced	to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a	fine
of	Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine,	she
has	been directed to undergo R.I. for one year.	For
offence	under section 33 of the Maharashtra	Medical
Practitioner	s Act, 1961 she has been sentenced to	pay
fine	of Rs.400/- and in default, to undergo	simple

¶14

: 3 :

¶15

imprisonme	nt	for	tw	o month	s.	The	s	ubst	antive	sentences
are	directed	to		run sep	arately.		The		sentences	in
default	of	paym	ent	of fine	are	also	to	run		separately.
Appeal	No.65		of	1990 is	preferre	d by	the	a	ccused	No.1
against	order	of	con	viction.	The	Appea	l No	.49	of	1990
is	by th	e	State	against	order	of	acquit	tal	for	offences
punishable	un	der	section	s 468,	465,	471	and	30	8 of	the
Indian	Penal	Cod	e.	I have	heard	the	learn	ed	A.P.P.	in
support	of	the	said	Appeal	and	the	learned		Counsel	for

¶16

the Accused No.1, who is the Respondent in the Appeal

¶17

against acquittal.

¶18

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is
that though Accused No.1 was running	a	nursing	home
known as Sukhashanti Nursing Home at	Bhayand	er from	1984
and though she was claiming to be	a qu	alified	Medical
Practitioner holding MBBS and MD degrees	and	a	Diploma
in Gynaecology and Obstetrics, she	was	in	fact
possessing no such qualifications. Ac	cording	to	the
case of the prosecution, the Accused	No.1	was	performing
surgeries. The Accused No.2 was emp	loyed	as a	Mid-wife
in the said Nursing Home of the Accuse	d No.1	and	the
case of the prosecution is that Accused	No.2	used	to
assist Accused No.1 in the Nursing Ho	me.	The	learned
trial Judge has acquitted the Accused	No	.2 of	all
offences which were alleged against her	and	there	is no
appeal against the acquittal preferred	by	the	State

¶19

: 4 :

¶20

Government	in	so	far as the	acquittal of	t	h	e		Accused
No.2 is	concerned.		P.W.1 Meen	akshi Sadash	iv Na	i	k	wa	s at
the	relevant	time	a lady	Police Const	able at	t	a	ched	to
the	Local Crime	Br	anch, Thane.	At that	time	P	.	W.1	was
pregnant.	At	the	instance of	P.I.	Zarekar			(P.W.6)	she
visited	the Nur	sing	Home of	the Accused	No.1			on	8th
October	1986.	She	was examin	ed by the	Accuse	d		No.1	and
she	prescribed	medic	ines to her.	P.W.1	paid			Rs.50/	- as
professional	fees	to	the Accused	No.1.	P.W.1			was	asked
to visit	the Nursi	ng	Home on th	e next da	y by			the	Accused
No.1.	Accordingly	P	.W.1 visited	the Nursin	g Hom		e	on	the
next	day.	The	Accused No.	1 after ex	amining			her	advised
her to	get	admitt	ed in the	Nursing Home	as			it	was
necessary	to admin	ister	saline to	her.	The	A		ccused	No.1
also	prescribed	me	dicine to P.	W.1. After		h	e	r	second
visit,	P.W.1 stra	ight	away pro	ceeded to	Bhay	a	n	der	Police
Station	and met		P.I. Zare	kar. He	r st	a	t	ement	was

¶21

recorded by P.I. Zarekar which was treated as F.I.R.

¶22

Investigation was carried out by P.I. Zarekar (P.W.6).

¶23

3.	It i	s the case of	the prosecution that the
Accused	No.1	obtained	a loan of	Rs.3,60,	000/-	from	the
Syndicate	Bank,	Ghatkopar	Branch, Mumbai	.	On	30th	April
1985,	the	Accused	No.1 submitted	an	app	lication	for
grant	of loan	vide	Exh.20.	Along	with	the	said
application,	she	submit	ted a letter	which	is	at	Exh.21.
Along	with the	said	letter, the Acc	used	No.1	submitt	ed a

¶24

: 5 :

¶25

xerox co	py of	the	registration cer	tificate issued by the
Maharashtra	Medic	al	Council in the	name of Kum.Sarita
Sayaji	Rane	on	4th November	1972 bearing registration
No.28964.	She	also	forwarded a	xerox copy of the
certificate	of	regis	tration (Exhibit	23) dated 30th
January	1975	purport	edly issued	by the Maharashtra
Medical	Council,	Bomba	y, in the na	me of Idgunji Anjani
Ganesh.	She	also	forwarded a xe	rox copy of degree
certificate	of	the	decree (Exhibit	24) of Doctor of

¶26

Medicine issued by the Chancellor of the University of

¶27

Bombay in the name of Anjani Ganesh Idgunji.

¶28

4.	According to the prosecution case, the Registrar
of	Maharashtra Medical Council informed	the
Investigating	Officer that the Accused No.1 was	not
enrolled	as a Medical Practitioner with the	said
Council.	The Registrar informed that Dr.Anjani	Ganesh
Idgunji	was enrolled with the Medical Council as	a
Medical	Practitioner and the said Dr.Anjani is	not
Accused	No.1. It was also stated that after	her
marriage,	the said Dr.Anjani is known as Sau	Anjali
Vivek	Nirogi. As per the record of the M	aharashtra
Medical	Council, the registration number 28964	was
assigned	to the registration in the name of	Dr.(Miss)
Telang	Nalini Govindrao who passed MBBS Examination	from
Karnataka	University. The said Miss Telang married	in
the ye	ar 1981 and after her marriage, her name	is

¶29

: 6 :

¶30

changed	to	Sau	Uma	Yeshwa	nt R	ane.	A	ccording	to	the case
of	the		prosecutio	n,	the	certif	icate	of		registration
(Exh.36		and	Exh.22)	in	the	name	of	Sarita	Sayaji	Rane

¶31

produced by the Accused No.1 was not issued by the

¶32

Maharashtra Medical Council.

¶33

The prosecution examined various prosecution witnesses. In all the prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The prosecution also led documentary evidence.

¶34

6.		P.W.1	Mrs.Meenakshi Naik was a Polic	e Consta	ble
working	in	the	local Crime Branch	, Tha	ne in	the	year
1986.	She	stated	that on 8th O	ctober	1986	P.I.	Zarekar
(P.W.6)	of	Bhay	andar Police Station	call	ed her	and	she
was	ordered	to	visit the Nursing	Home	of	Accused	No.1.
According	to	the	said witness, she	was	pregn	ant at	the
relevant	time.		She visited the	said	Nursing	Home	for
her	check	up.	She stated that	the	Accused	No.1	was
present	in	the	Nursing Home and	there	were	two	women
patients	admitted	in	the Nursing Home	at	that	time.	The
Accused	No.2	w	as also present in	the	Nursing	Home	at
that	time.	P.	W.1 met Accused N	o.1 in	her	cabin.	The
Accused	No.1	ex	amined her in pre	sence	of	Accused	No.2.
Accused	No.1	o	pined that P.W.1		was	suffering	from
weakness	and		therefore, she pre	scribed	tablets	.	When
asked	by the	P.W	.1, the Accused N	o.1	quoted	her fees	and

¶35

: 7 :

¶36

P.W.1	paid	to her a sum	of Rs.50/- by way	of
profession	al	fees. P.W.1	instructed her to visit	the
Nursing		Home next day.	Accordingly P.W.1 visited	the
Nursing	Hom	e at 10.00 a.m.	on the next day. Sh	e stated
that s	he	also noticed that	there were two women	patients
admitted	in	the Nursing Home	of the Accused No.1.	P.W.1
stated	th	at she was examined	by the Accused No.1.	She
was	ad	vised by the Accus	ed No.1 to get herself	admitted
in	the	Nursing Home as	according to Accused No.1	it was
necessary		to administer salin	e. On that day	Accused
No.1	pres	cribed some medic	ines to P.W.1. From	the
Nursing		Home P.W.1 straight	away came to the	Bhayander
Police	S	tation and disc	losed the happenings to	P.I.
Zarekar.		Along with P.I.	Zarekar, P.W.1 again	visited
the	Nurs	ing Home in the	afternoon at about 12.30	p.m.
The	me	dicines in the Nursin	g Home were seized.	F.I.R.
of	P.W.1	(Exh.12) was	thereafter recorded by	the
Bhayandar		Police Station.	P.W.1 produced	the

¶37

prescription (Exh.13) issued to her by the Accused No.1.

¶38

7.		In	the cross	-examin	ation, P.W.1	stated that in
the	morning	at	about	8.00	a.m.	on 8th	October	1986,	she
was	told	to	visit	Bha	yander	Police Station.		She	visited
Bhaya	ndar	Police	Stat	ion	by 9.00	a.m. an	d she		reached
the	Nursing	Hom	e of	the	Accused	No.1 at	about	11.00	a.m.
She	stated	th	at	the	amount	of Rs.50/-	paid	to	the
Accus	ed N	o.1	was	her	amount	and it was	not the		amount

¶39

: 8 :

¶40

She

¶41

provided	by	P.I.	Zareka	r.	She	admitted	that	she	did
not	purchase	any	medicines	pre	scribed	by	Accused		No.1.
She	stated that	on	9th	October	19	86, no	pres	cription	was
given	by the	Accused	No.1.		She	stated	that sh	e did	not
tell	Accused No.	1 on	9th	October	19	86 that	she	had	not
taken	the medicine	pres	cribed	by	the	Accused	No.1	on	the
earlier	day.	She	stated	that	even	the	Accused	No.1	did

¶42

not ask her whether she had taken the medicine

¶43

prescribed by her.

¶44

P.W.2 is one Phulubai Vijay Maya.

¶45

8.		P.W.2	is one Ph	ulubai	Vijay Maya.
identified	the	A	ccused	No	.1 before	the	Cou	rt.	She
stated	that	she	had	taken	medicines	from	her	and	she
delivered	a	fem	ale	child	in the	Nursing	Home	of	the
Accused	No.1.		She	stated	that	her said	da	ughter	was

¶46

well. The said witness was not cross-examined by the

¶47

Advocate for the Accused No.1.

¶48

9.	P.W	.3 Shri	Shashi	kant Ac	hutrao Gadre was the
Registrar	of	Mah	arashtra		Medical Council from 2nd April
1980	to 15th	Decem	ber	1986.	He stated that on 15th May
1986,	he received	a	lett	er	from the P.S.I. of Bhayandar
Police	Station	to	make	en	quiry about the Accused No.1.
He	produced	the	orig	inal	letter at Exh.17. He stated
that	every	Me	dical	Pra	ctitioner has to enroll himself
with	the Me	dical	Co	uncil.	The Medical Council has
maintained	a	reg	ister		of medical practitioners. He

¶49

: 9 :

¶50

stated	th	at after verifyi	ng from the register, he found
that	the	Accused No.1	was not enrolled as a Medical
Practitioner		with the Me	dical Concil. Accordingly, he
informed	the	Bhayandar Poli	ce Station. The reply issued
by	him	(Exh.18) to the	Police Station was proved in his
evidence.		He stated	in examination-in-chief that
Dr.Anjani		Ganesh Idgunji	was enrolled with the Medical
Council.		He stated that	he also informed the address of
Dr.Anjani		to the Police	Station. He stated that office
of	the	Medical Council	had not received any application
from	the	Accused No.1	to enroll herself as a Medical
Practitioner.		In the	cross-examination, he was shown a
certificate	of	registration is	sued in the name of Sarita
Sayaji	Ran	e bearing N	o.28964. He stated after seeing
the	said	certificate that	Sarita Sayaji Rane was
registered		with the Ma	harashtra Medical Council and her
registration		number is 28964	. A xerox copy of the said
registration		certificate was	shown to him. He stated

¶51

that the xerox copy was a copy of the said original.

¶52

The xerox copy was exhibited as Exh.22.

¶53

10.	P.W	.4 Pilla	r Santor Sukumar was	working as the
Branch	Manager		in Syndicat	e Bank,		Ghatkopar		Branch,
Mumbai	during	the	year 1984-85.	He	stat	ed that	he	knew
the	Accused	No.1.	According	to him	on	30th	April	1985,
the	Accused	No.	1 had visited	his branc	h	and h	ad	asked
for	a loan	in	the sum of	Rs.3,60,000/-.		He	produc	ed in

¶54

: 10 :

¶55

evidence	the		origin	al	loa	n applicati	on		(Exhibit	20)
submitted	by	the	Ac	cused	No.1.	He		stated	that	the loan
application	bears		the	sign	ature	of Accus	ed		No.1.	He
stated	that	nece	ssary	part	iculars	were	p	roduced	by	the
Accused	No.1	alo	ng	with	her	a let	ter	(E	xh.21).	He
stated	that alo	ng	with	E	xh.21,	the	Acc	used	No.1	produced
certificates	in	the	na	me o	f	Anjani Gan	esh	Idgu	nji.	He
stated	that	when	a	query	was	made t	o	the	Accused	No.1
she	clarified	tha	t	Anjani	Ga	nesh Idgu	nji	was	her	maiden
name.	A	limit	ed	cross	exam	ination of		the	said	witness
was ma	de by	the	Accu	sed	No.1.	P.W.4		stated	that	he does
not	remember	whe	ther	his	state	ment was		recorded	by	the
Police.	He	sta	ted	that	he	did not		doubt	thoug	h the

¶56

Accused No.1 gave two maiden names and two different

¶57

marital names.

¶58

P.W.5 Dr.Anjali Vivek Nirogi stated that she

¶59

passed	her	MBBS Degree	in the	y	ear 1	97		5 and	she	did her
MD	in	March 1978.	Her maid	en	name		w	as A	njani	Ganesh
Idgunji.	S	he stated t	hat she		use	d		to	attend	a
Polyclinic		at Prabhadevi	and	afte	r ab	o	u	t four	year	s she
joined	a	Polyclinic a	t Mahim.		She			never	practiced	at
Bhayandar.		She never	obtained		any	lo	a	n from		Syndicate
Bank.		She identified	the Accu	sed	No.1			who	was	present
before	the	Court by	stating	that	the			Accused	No.1	was
practicing	in	Nadkarni	Polyclinic		as	a		Gyna	ecologist	and
she	used	to attend	the said		Polyclin	ic.		Th	e	Advocate

¶60

: 11 :

¶61

for the Accused No.1 declined to cross-examine the said

¶62

witness.

¶63

P.W.6 Shankar Gangaram Zarekar stated that he

¶64

12. P.W.6 Shankar Gangaram Zarekar stated that he
had asked P.W.1 Meenakshi Naik to visit the Nursing	Home
of the Accused No.1 with the object of verifying	whether
the Accused No.1 was practicing as a	Medical
Practitioner. He stated that after visiting her	Nursing
Home, P.W.1 informed him that Accused No.1 had	examined
her. He stated that P.W.1 visited the Nursing Home	of
the Accused No.1 on the next day and after	returning
from the Nursing Home, she came to the Police	Station
and lodged the complaint. He stated that he	referred
the matter to the Maharashtra Medical Council. In	the
cross-examination, the witness stated that on	8th
October 1986, the Complainant had been in to	Police
Station but she did not meet him. He did not	enquire
whether Aruna Harishchandra Patil was the maiden na	me or
the marital name of Accused No.1 and whether she	was
known by that name. He stated that he inquired	with the
Maharashtra Medical Council. He also inquired w	ith the
School which the Accused No.1 attended at	Ghatkopar.
However, he did not get any information. He stat	ed that
he did not record the statements of the	concerned
persons in that behalf. He admitted that he did	enquire
with the Accused No.1 about her	registration
certificate. He also inquired with the Accused	No.1

¶65

: 12 :

¶66

whether	she had	mar	ried and	she tol	d him th	at she	was
married.	He sta	ted	that he	does	not know	whether	one
Amar	Sayaji Rane	a	ged about	9 years	was t	he son	of
Accused	No.1.	P	.W.6 was		recalled	for	further
examinatio	n-in-chief.		He state	d tha	t the	Accused	Nos.1
and	2 were arres	ted	on 9th	October	1986.	He	also
recorded	the state	ment	of Sati	sh Gan	esh Idg	unji.	He
stated	that on 15th		May, 1989,	he	wrote a	letter to	the
Registrar,	Maharashtra		Medical	Council.	He	stated	that
he	recorded the	sta	tement of	Dr.K	rishna Chi	mote as	well
as	Dr.Uma Yeshw	ant	Rane.	In	the cross-ex	amination	he

¶67

admitted that the statement of Dr.Uma Yeshwant Rane was

¶68

recorded at 11.30 p.m.

¶69

P.W.7 Achyut Kashinath Karekar was holding the

¶70

post	of the Registrar, Maharashtra	Medical Council	with
effect	from 16th August 1988. He	stated that	all
medical	practitioners practising in	allopathy	are
required	to register with the	Maharashtra	Medical
Council.	He stated that after	registration,	the
Maharashtra	Medical Council issue	s a re	gistration
certificate	to the concerned Medical	Practitioner and	on
such	certificate issued by the	Maharashtra	Medical
Council,	the seal of the Maharashtra	Medical Counci	l is
embossed.	He stated that one Shri M	.V.Bagul was	the
Registrar	of the Maharashtra Medical	Council prior	to
him.	He was shown the registration	certificate	marked

¶71

: 13 :

¶72

Exh.36 which was	earlier shown	to P.	W.3 Shri S	hashikant
Gadre in his c	ross-examination.	After	looking at	the
certificate Exh.36, h	e stated tha	t the	certificate	was
not issued by the	Council and	as per	the office	record,
the certificate bearing	the said	registrat	ion number	has
been issued to	one Dr.(Miss)	Telang	Nalini G	ovindrao.
He stated that the	seal on the	certificat	e at Exhibit	36
was not that of	the Maharashtra	Medical	Council.	He
stated that Exh.36	was not	the	registration c	ertificate
issued by the Council.	In the	cross	examination, he	has
admitted that Shri	Bagul	was th	e Registrar	of
Maharashtra Medical C	ouncil in	the ye	ar 1972.	He
produced the origi	nal application	of Dr.	Miss	Telang
Nalini Govindrao	submitted to	the	Council	for
registration. He stat	ed that h	e was	not aware	as
regards any rule	requiring mentio	ning of	the	surname
first and then the	name of	the	Applicant in	the
registration certificate.	He state	d that	he was	unable
to tell whether	the signature	on the	Certificate	at
Exh.36 was that of	Shri M.V.Bagul.	He	was unable	to
point out the rul	e which requ	ires the	seal of	the
Medical Council to	be embossed	on	the re	gistration
certificate. He exp	ressed inability	to	state whether	he
had an occasion to	see the	signature	of Shri M.	V.Bagul.
He denied the	correctness of	the sugg	estion that	he

¶73

falsely stated that Exh.36 is not the original

¶74

certificate.

¶75

: 14 :

¶76

P.W.8 Dr.Krishna Sudhir Chimote stated that she

¶77

had obta	ined MBBS	and	a di	ploma	in	Anaesth	esiology.	She
produced	her c	ertificat	e of	registra	tion	issued	by	the
Maharashtra	Medical	Cou	ncil.	She	stated	that	from	May
1985 she	was resi	ding	at Bha	yandar.		She	stated that	she
knew	the Accu	sed	No.1 as	Dr.A	runa	Patil,	M.D.,	D.G.O.
She st	ated that	at	the	Sukhshan	ti	Nursing	Home	at
Bhayander,	there is	a	board d	isplayed	in	the	name of	the
Accused	No.1.	Sh	e stated	that	on	number	of o	ccasions
she	had visited	the	hospital	of	Accu	sed	No.1 for	giving
anaesthesia.	She	st	ated that	the	Ac	cused	No.1	herself
performed	surgery.	She	stated	that	she	was	present	when

¶78

Accused No.1 performed operations. She opined that if a

¶79

layman performs operation, it is very fatal.

¶80

15.	P.W.9 Dr.Uma Yeshwant Ran	e stated	that	her
maiden	name was Nalini Gov	indrao	Te	lang	and	she	passed
MBBS	in the year 1972	from	the		Karn	ataka	University.
She	stated that she has	regi	stered		herself	with	the
Maharashtra	Medical Council	and		he	r r	egistration	number
was	28964. She produc	ed	he	r	ori	ginal	registration
certificate	at Exh.42. She	stated		that	she	does	not
know th	e Accused No.1 or one	Sari	ta	Say	aji	Rane.	In the
cross-	examination she admitte	d tha	t	she	was	not	in a

¶81

position to identify the signature of the Registrar on

¶82

the certificate.

¶83

: 15 :

¶84

Shri Hudlikar, the learned Counsel appearing for

¶85

the Accused No.1 has	mad	e extensive submissions.	He
submitted that no offe	nce	has been proved against	the
Accused No.1. He su	bmitte	d that it is not	established
by the prosecution that	the	Accused No.1 was n	ot a
registered medical practiti	oner.	He submitted tha	t the
certificate at Exh.36	is	a genuine certificate.	He
submitted that the said	cer	tificate has been duly	signed
by Shri M.V.Bagul wh	o	was admittedly the Registrar	of
Maharashtra Medical Coun	cil	at the relevant time.	He
submitted that the certi	ficate	itself discloses that	the
Accused No.1 was	a	registered medical p	ractitioner.
Inviting my attention	to	the evidence of P.W.1,	he
pointed out that according	to	the version of P.W.1	after
visiting the Nursing Home	of	Accused No.1 on 9th	October
1986, she visited the	Bh	ayandar Police Station.	Around
12.30 in the afternoon,	P.I.	Zarekar along with	the
said witness visited the	Nur	sing Home of Accused	No.1.
At that time medicines	in	the Nursing Home were	seized.
He pointed out that	the	witness has stated that	after
the seizure, her F.I.R.		was recorded. He	submitted
that thus the investig	ation	commenced even	before
recording of the	F.I.R.	and therefore,	the
investigation and the		consequential actions	are
vitiated. He submitted		that the seizure of	various
goods under panchanama	at	Exh.10 becomes illegal.	He

¶86

: 16 :

¶87

submitted	that		the	prosec	ution	has	not		e	xamined	any
patient so	as		to pr	ove	that	the		Accused		No.1	had
deceived	any	one	and	that	any	loss	or	inju	r	y was	caused
to any	one	due	to any	act	on	the	part	of		the	Accused
No.1.	He	su	bmitted	that	there	is	enou	gh		evidence	on
record	to	show	that	the	Accus	ed	No.1	was		a	registered
medical	practition	er	and	was	prac	ticing	as		s	uch.	He
submitted	that	no	case	is	mad	e	out	either		under	section
419 or	under	sect	ion 420	of	the	Ind	ian	Penal		Code.	He
submitted	that	as	the		Accuse	d	No.	1	w	as	possessing
registration,	n	o	offence	un	der	the	M	aharashtr	a		Medical
Practitioners	Act,		1961	has	been	mad	e	out.		He	has
invited	my		attention	to	the	se	veral	discre	p	ancies	and
inconsistencies		in	the	prosec	ution	cas	e.	He			submitted

¶88

that the trial court ought to have passed an order of

¶89

acquittal of the Accused No.1.

¶90

17.		With	out prej	ud	ice to the aforesaid submis	sions,
he	invited		my	at	tention to the	fact	that	the	Accused
No.1	was		acquitt	ed	of the o	ffences	pun	ishable	under
sections	468,	465,	47	1	and 308 of	the	Indian	Penal	Code.
He	submitt	ed	tha	t	considering the	fact	that	the	said
offences		are	not		proved by t	he	prosecution,	the	finding
of	guilt	for	offe	nc	es under sections	419	and	420	of the
Indian	Pe	nal	Code		was inconsistent	with	the	finding	of
innocence.		He	sub	m	itted that the	find	ing of	the	learned
Judge	is		that		the prosecution	has	failed	to	establish

¶91

: 17 :

¶92

that the Accused No.1 forged the MBBS degree certificate

¶93

of Dr.Anajani Ganesh Idgunji and has dishonestly used

¶94

the same.

¶95

18.	La	stly Shr	i Hudlikar s	ubmitted that t	he Accu	sed
No.1	has not	done	any	harm to	any	patient.	He	submitted
that	the	Accuse	d No.1	has r	epaid	the entire	amount	of
loan	advanced	to	her	by	the	Syndicate	Bank	with
interest.		He	submitted	that	it	is an	admitted	position
that	while	pr	acticing	as a	medi	cal pra	ctitioner,	the
Accused	No.1	has	not	caused	h	arm to	any	patient.
Without	preju	dice	to	all his	earl	ier sub	missions,	he
submitted	that	co	nsidering	the	pre	sent age	of	the
Accused	No.1,		a lenie	nt view	is	required to	be	taken.

¶96

He submitted that after the registration of the F.I.R.,

¶97

the Accused No.1 has stopped all her activities.

¶98

19.	The	learned A.P.	P suppo	rted	the	impugned
Judgment	and	order	by	po	inting	out the	evidence	on
record.	In	support	of		the	Appeal agai	nst acquittal	, he
submitted	that	offences	un	der	s	ection 468,	465, 471	and
308	of the	Indian	Penal		Code	were duly	established	by
the	prosecution.		The	lea	rned	Counsel for	the	Accused
No.1	submitted	that	in	an	a	ppeal against	acquittal,	no
interference	is	called	for		as	the order	of	acquittal

¶99

passed the learned trial Judge is consistent with the

¶100

evidence on record.

¶101

: 18 :

¶102

20.	I have carefully consider	ed the submissi	ons mad	e
by	the learned Counsel	appearing	for	the	parties.	I
have	also perused th	e notes	of		evidence,	exhibited
documents	and the stat	ement of	Accus	ed	No.1	recorded
under	section 313 of	the Code	of		Criminal	Procedure,

¶103

I have also perused the impugned judgment and

¶104

order.

¶105

21.	T	urning to the evidence of P.W.1 it must be
noted	here	that she has not stated in her	ex	amination-
in-chief	that	P.I. Zarekar while deputing	her to	visit
the	Nursing	Home of the Accused No.1 had	disclosed	to
her	that	Accused No.1 was not a regi	stered	medical
practitioner.		The fact that the Accused No.	1	examined
the P.	W.1	who was pregnant at that time	is	not
challenged	in	the cross-examination. There is	also	no
challenge	to	the fact that P.W.1 paid an	amount	of
Rs.50/-	to	Accused No.1. The evidence	of	P.W.2
establishes	that	she got herself admitted in	the	Nursing
Home	of	the Accused No.1 and the Accuse No.	1 gave	her
medicines.		She has stated that she delivered	a	female
child	in the	Nursing Home of Accused	No.1.	No

¶106

cross-examination of the said witness has been made by

¶107

the Advocate for Accused No.1.

¶108

The Police Inspector of Bhayandar Police Station

¶109

: 19 :

¶110

had	written	a letter	dated 1	5th May	1986	(Exh.17)	to the
Mahara	shtra	Medical	Council,	Mumbai.		The first	query
made	in	the said	letter	records	t	hat Sau	Aruna
Harishc	handra	Patil was	posing	to be M	BBS,	MD, DGO	and
she	was	stating that	she h	ad lost	her	certificates.	The
query	wa	s whether	any	record was	ava	ilable with	the
Mahara	shtra	Medical	Counc	il about	the	alleged	decrees
obtaine	d	by her	and w	hether there		was any r	egistration.
The	second	query was	on the	basis of	a	xerox copy	of the
registra	tion	certificate	No.3	3144 dated		30th	January
1975	in	the name	of Dr.Idg	unji Anjani	Ga	nesh. The	query
was	regard	ing the	full add	ress of	Dr.A	njani Idagunj	i and
details		about the	place w	here she	has	taken	education.

¶111

A request was made to supply a photograph of Dr.Anjani

¶112

Idgunji.

¶113

23. In repl	y (Exh.18) d	ated 29th June 1989 to the
letter at Exhibit	15,	the P.W.3 Shri Sh	ashikant	Achutrao
Gadre, the	Registrar	of Maharashtra M	edical	Council
replied that	Dr.Anjani	is a regis	tered	medical
practitioner bear	ing	registration No.33144	dated	30th
January 1975.	It	is stated that the	said	Dr.Anjani
Ganesh Idgunji	passed	M.B.B.S. degree in	1975	from
Topiwala National	Medic	al College and her	name	was
changed to	Sau.Anjani	Vivek Nirogi on 13th	June	1978.
Her address was	also	disclosed in the said	letter	and it
was stated that	her	photograph was not avail	able.	The

¶114

: 20 :

¶115

reply	categorically	records t	hat	Dr Aruna	Ha	rishchandra
Patil	was not a	registered	medical	practitioner	as	per
the	record of the	Medical	Council.	These	two	letters
have	been proved in	evidence	by	P.W.3.	In	the
cross-exami	nation, the	ori	ginal	certi	ficate	of
registration	(Exhibit 36)	in the	name	of Sa	rita	Sayaji
Rane	was shown to	the said	witness.	On	seein	g the
original	certificate of	registration,	he	stated	that	the
said	Sarita Sayaji	Rane has	been	registered	with	the
Maharashtra	Medical	Council,	Bombay	under		registration
number	28964 dated 4t	h November	1972.	He	stated	that a
xerox	copy of the	registration	certifi	cate which	is	at

¶116

Exh.22 was the xerox copy of the said original

¶117

certificate of registration.

¶118

24.	P.W.4 Pillar Santor Suku	mar prod	uced in evide	nce
the	application for loan	(Exhi	bit 20)	submitted by	the
Accused	No.1 and a letter	at	Exhibit	21 submitted by	the
Appellant	along with		its	accompaniments.	The
Application	for loan	at	Exh.20	reveals that	the
Appellant	disclosed her	name	as	Aruna H.Patil	a/s
Mrs.Vaishali	J.Walake.		Against	the	column
"Father’s/Hu	sband’s name"	the	Appellan	t has written	the
name o	f Mr.Jagdish Govind	Walak	e.	She has disclosed	her
educational	qualification as	M.D.,	D.G.O.	In the	letter
at	Exh.21 addressed to	the	Manager	of Syndicate	Bank,
the	Appellant has stated	that	her	pre-marital name	was

¶119

: 21 :

¶120

Anjani	Ganesh Idgunji. In the A	pplication for	m at
Exh.20,	the Applicant disclosed her	name after	the
marriage	as Mrs.Vaishali J.Walake.	She described	the
name	of her husband as Shri Jagdis	h Govind	Walake.
Exh.22	is a zerox copy of the all	eged certificate	issued
by	the Maharashtra Medical Council	bearing	registration
No.28964.	The said certificate is issued	in the n	ame of
Kum.Sarita	Sayaji Rane on 4th Nove	mber 1972.	The
qualification	of Sarita is mentioned	as	M.B.B.S.
(Karnataka)	1972. The registration	certificate	issued
by	Maharashtra Municipal Council in	the name	of
Kum.Idgunji	Anjani Ganesh is dated 30th	January 19	75 and
the	registration number is 33144.	The said	certificate
notes	that the said Kum.Idgunji Anj	ani Ganesh	possesses
the	qualification of M.B.B.S.(Bombay) of	1975.	Exh.36
is	the alleged original certificate issued	in the	name
of	Kum.Sarita Sayaji Rane bearing	registration	number
28964.	The said certificate was show	n by the	Appellant
to P.W.	3 Shashikant Gadre in his cross	- examination.	It
is s	ought to be contended that the	P.W.3 admitted	the
said	certificate at Exh.36 as a	genuine	certificate.

¶121

Paragraph 3 of the cross- examination of P.W.3 reads

¶122

thus:

¶123

"3.	O	n seeing the original	certificate of
registration	now	shown to	me I	say	that	Sarita
Sayaji	Rane	has	been	registe	red	with

¶124

: 22 :

¶125

Maharashtra	Medic	al Council		Bom	bay	and
registration	number	is 28964.		The	date	of
registration	is	4.11.72.	The	zerox	copy	of
the registration c	ertificate now s	hown to me
is the same. It is	at Exh.22."

¶126

Thus	it is ve	ry clear that what is	stated in paragraph	3
by	the witn	ess is on the basis of	the perusal of	the
certificate	at	Exh.36. He has not	made the sta	tement
which	is	recorded in paragraph 3	after due verif	ication
of	the record	of the Maharashtra Me	dical Council.	The
P.W.7	Achyut	Kashinath Karekar who	was holding the	post
of	Registrar	of Maharashtra Medical	Council from	16th
August	1988	deposed that the certific	ate at Exh.36	has
not	been i	ssued by Maharashtra Med	ical Council.	He
stated	that	the registration number	28964 dated	4th
November	197	2 was of Dr.(Miss)	Telang Nalini Govi	ndrao.
He st	ated that	the seal on the ce	rtificate at Exh.36	was
not	of the	Maharashtra Medical Counci	l. He produced	in
evidence	an	application for regis	tration submitted	by
the	said Dr	.(Miss) Telang Nalini Govi	ndrao which is	at
Exh.37.	Th	e said application disc	loses that the	said
candidate	passe	d M.B.B.S. examin	ation from Kar	nataka
University	in	the year 1972. On	the said appli	cation,
the	registration	number 28964 and 4th	November 1972	as
the	date	of registration have been	clearly end	orsed.
P.W.9	Dr.Uma	Yeshwant Rane stated tha	t her maiden	name

¶127

: 23 :

¶128

was Nalini Govindrao Telang and she	passed	M.B.B.S.
examination from Karnataka University and	said tha	t she
has been granted registration by the	Maharashtra	Medical
Council in her name under the r	egistration	No.28964.
She produced her original registration certificate at Exh.42.
25. It was sought to be contended that the Registrar
of the Medical Council could not say	with	certainty
whether the certificate at Exh.36 is	issued under	the
signature of Shri M.V.Bagul, Registra	r. It	was
submitted that the said Bagul was not	examined a	s a
prosecution witness and therefore, the	certificate	at
Exh.36 has to be treated as a genuin	e certificate.	The
said argument cannot be accepted for	more than	one
reason. Firstly the Appellant in the	letter at	Exh.21
addressed to the Manager of the Syndica	te Bank	claimed
that her premarital name was Anjani	Ganesh	Idgunji.
Secondly P.W.7 Achyut Karekar deposed that	the seal	on
the said certificate at Exh.36 was not	that of	the
Maharashtra Medical Council. Thirdly	P.W.9	Dr.Uma
Yeshwant Rane deposed before the Court	that her	maiden
name was Nalini Govindrao Telang and	she has	been
granted registration on 4th November	1972	vide
registration No.28964 and she produce	d the	registration
certificate bearing registration No.28964 Maharashtra Medical Council dated 4th No	issued by vember 1972	the at

¶129

: 24 :

¶130

Exh.42.	Lastly, the original app	lication	for enrollment
filed	by the said Nalini Govindrao	Telang	was produced
on r	ecord at Exh.37 on which there	is	an endorsement
that	the said candidate was	granted	registration
No.28964	dated 4th November 1972.	The	document at
Exh.22	is a xerox copy of Exh.36.	It	is therefore
obvious	that the documents at Exh.36	and	Exh.22 are not
at all	genuine and authentic documents.	It	is proved by
the	prosecution that the registration	number	28964 is
the	registration number of the reg	istration	granted to
Dr.Ms.Nalini	Govindrao Telang (P.W	.9).	Thus the
prosecution	has established that one	Savita	Sayaji Rane
was	not granted registration	certificate	by the
Maharashtra	Medical Council. In	any	case the
Maharashtra	Medical Council did no	t grant	registration

¶131

certificate No.28964 on 4th November 1972 in favour said

¶132

Kum.Savita Sayaji Rane.

¶133

At this stage it will be necessary to refer to the statement made by the Appellant under section 313 of

¶134

the Code. While answering question No.22, she has stated thus:

¶135

"I	had	education	upto	7th std.	at	Ghatkopar
in	Dhanji	Deoji	Municip	al School.	Then	I had
further		education	in	Chhabildas	Girls	School
at	Dadar.	I	then	joined Som	aya College	for

¶136

: 25 :

¶137

inter science. I took admission in	Grant
Medical College Bombay. In 1967 I	got
married. I did first and second year	of
M.B.B.S. in Grant Medical College. I ca	me to
Belgaon with my husband. I joined	National
Medical College, Belgaon. I did my	M.B.B.S.
from that college. In October 1972 I ca	me to
Bombay. I got myself registered	with
Mah.Medical Council in Nov. 1972 by	giving
application and certificate. I joined	Civil
Hospital Thane as M.O. I was attached	to
Civil Hospital till 1976. During this	period
I did my M.D. from St.G.S.Medical	College,
Bombay. I was practising at Turbhe and	Keena
upto 1980. In 1981 I started listing	Nadkarni
Polyclinic. I was performing	operation.
Aruna Harischandra Patil was my	pre-marital
name. After marriage my name is Sarita	Sayaji

¶138

Rane. From 1984 I am running nursing home at

¶139

Bhayandar."

¶140

Thus	her	defence	seems to	be th	at	her	name after
marriage	was	Sa	rita Sayaji Ran	e and	her	name	prior to
the	marriage	was	Aruna	Harisch	andra	Patil.	P.W.3
Shashikant		Gadre	has deposed	that	Dr	Aruna	Harischandra
Patil	has	not	been enrolled	as	a	Medical	Practitioner
with	the	Maharas	htra Medical	Council.		That	is also

¶141

: 26 :

¶142

stated in the letter at E Maharashtra Medical Council on	xh.18 15th	issued May	by 1986.	the In	R	egistrar, her
letter at Exh.21 sbmitted to	the	Syndic	ate	Bank,		the
Appellant claimed that her	prem	arital	name	was		Anjani
Ganesh Idgunji. The evidence	of	P.W.5	Dr.	Anjani		Vivek
Nirogi is relevant. The	said	witness	stated	that		her
maiden name was Anjani Ganesh	Id	gunji.	She	has		stated
that she is possessing M.B.B.S.	a	nd M.	D.	degrees		and
she never practiced at Bhay	andar	and	she	never	o	btained
a loan from the Syndicate Ba	nk.	She	stated	that		she
knew the Appellant and the	App	ellant	was	practicing		in
Nadkarni Polyclinic as a Gyna	ecologi	st and	she	used		to
attend the said Polyclinic.	The	said	witness	is	not	at
all cross-examined by the	Appel	lant-accuse	d N	o.1.		Thus
it is obvious that the Appell	ant’s	maiden	name	was		not
Anjani Ganesh Idgunji. It	is	pertinent	to	note	that	in
the statement under section	313	the	Ap	pellant		stated
that her premarital name wa	s	Aruna	Harishch	andra		Patil
and after her marriage her	name	was	Sarita	Sayaj	i	Rane.
In the loan application at	Exh.2	0, the		Appellant		has
given her name as Aruna		H.Patil	alia	s	Mrs.	Vaishali
J.Walake. In reply to Column	(iv)	of	paragraph	A	of	the
loan Application (Exhibit 20)	she	stated	that	she		was
married and obviously therefore	the	name	of	the		person
mentioned in Column (ii) i.e.		Jagdish	Govi	nd W	alake	is
the name of her husband.	In	letter	at	Exh.2	1	she
disclosed her premarital name	a	s An	jani	Ganesh		Idgunji.

¶143

: 27 :

¶144

If this is the state of affairs, it is obvious t	hat the
defence of the Appellant that her name after	marriage
was Sarita Sayaji Rane was rightly rejected by the	trial
Court. Thus the conclusion of the aforesaid	discussion
is that the Appellant had not obtained registration	from
the Maharashtra Medical Council as required by	the
Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The Appellant	had
forwarded to the Syndicate Bank the certificate	at
Exh.23 in the name of Kum.Idgunji Anita Ganesh	which
discloses that the said woman passed	M.B.B.S.
Examination from the Bombay University in 1975.	The
certificate at Exh.36 shows that Sarita Sayaji	Rane
passed M.B.B.S. from Karnataka University in the	year
1972. Going by her statement under section 313,	the
contents of the Application for loan and the letter	of
the Appellant at Exh.21, the Accused No.1 disclose	d two
different names as her maiden names. Therefore,	there
is absolutely no evidence on record to show that	the

¶145

Appellant was Sarita Sayoji Rane and that she possessed

¶146

the qualifications of M.B.B.S.,M.D. and D.G.O.

¶147

27.		Th	e trial	Court has	convict	ed the	Appella	nt for
the	off	ence	pun	ishable	under		section	419	of	the	Indian
Penal	Co	de.		The	evide	nce	of	P.W.1	discl	oses	that the
Appellant		exam	ined	h	er	by		posing	he	rself	as a
Gynaecolo	gist.			P.W.2	has	sta	ted	that	she	was	admitted
in	the	Nurs	ing	Home	of	the	Ap	pellant	for	the	purpose of

¶148

: 28 :

¶149

delivery	and she delivered a	child	in	the nursing	home
of the	Accused No.1. She	has	stated	that she	took
medicines	from the Appellant.		Evid	ence of	P.W.5
Dr.Anjani	Vivek Nirogi discl	oses	that	the Appellan	t was
practicing	in Nadkarni Polyclinic	as	a	Gynaecologis	t and
she	used to attend the	said	Polyc	linic.	Surprisingly
there is	no cross- examination	made	of	the said	witness.
P.W.8	Krishna Sudhir Chimote		stated	that she	was
M.B.B.S.	and she had	obt	ained	a diploma	in
Anaesthesiolo	gy. She stated	that	she	visited	Sukhshanti
Nursing	Home at Bhayandar	for	adm	inistering	Anesthesia
to the	patients. She stat	ed tha	t ther	e was a	board
displayed	at the said Nursing	Home	of	the name of	the
Appellant.	She stated tha	t	the	Appellant	herself
performed	operations and she	wa	s	present when	the
Appellant	performed op	erations.		In	the
cross-examina	tion, she stated	that	about	five to	six
times	she must have visited	the	Hosp	ital to	administer
Anaesthesia.	Thus there	is a	clinch	ing evidence	on
record	to show that	the	Appe	llant was	falsely
representing	to the patients	that	she	was a	medical
practitioner.	She was exa	mining		the patients	and
prescribing	medicines. In fact	she	even	used to	perform
surgery	which is normally	done o	nly	by a	qualified
Doctor.	Even in the appli	cation	for	loan submitted	to
the Sy	ndicate Bank, the	Appellant	claim	ed to	be a
qualified	doctor possessing quali	tifcations	o	f M.D.	and

¶150

: 29 :

¶151

D.G.O. Thus offence under section 419 is established by

¶152

the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶153

28. So	far as the offence under section 420 is
concerned, the	application for loan at Exh.20 and the
letter at	Exh.21 clearly show that the Appellant
represented t	hat she was a medical practitioner
possessing educat	ional qualification of M.D. and D.G.O.
She claimed	to have registered herself as a medical
practitioner	with the Maharashtra Medical Council. The
application form	at Exh.20 which is filled up by the
Appellant is	meant for seeking financial assistance by a
professional.	Thus as a professional medical
practitioner she	claimed loan. The officer of the
Syndicate Ban	k stated that the loan was sanctioned as
asked for by	the Appellant. The Appellant had asked for
loan in the	sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. It must be noted here
that the said	witness has not deposed anything about the
repayment of	the loan by the Appellant. Thus it is
clear that a	representation was made by the Appellant to
the Syndicate	Bank that she was a qualified medical
practitioner.	The said representation was false and
dishonest which	induced the Bank to sanction and
disburse a	loan of Rs.3,60,000/- which could have been
granted only	to a professional who was a qualified and
registered medic	al practitioner. In view of this
position, there	is no error in the finding recorded by

¶154

: 30 :

¶155

the trial	Court	that	the	prose	cution	has est	ablished	the
offence	under	section	420 of	the	Penal	Code.	I	have
already	held	earlier	that		the	Appellant	was	not
possessing	any	valid	registr	ation.		Therefore,		offence

¶156

under section 33 of the Medical Practitioners Act, 1961

¶157

is also established.

¶158

29.		The trial Court acquitted the Appellant of the
offences	un	der sections 468, 465, 471 and 308 of	the
Indian	Penal	Code. I have already discusse	d the
evidence	led	by the prosecution in detail. There	is not
even	a	case made out by the prosecution that there	was
any	attemp	t to commit culpable homicide on the part	of
the	Appe	llant. Therefore, the learned trial Judge	was
right	in	holding that the offence under section 3	08 was
not est	ablished.	So far as offence under section	465 is
concerned,		the learned trial Judge has made	elaborate
discussion.		The learned trial Judge found that	the
Appellant		never used the alleged original	registration
certificate	at	Exh.36 and she had submitted to	the
Syndicate		bank the xerox copies of the	certificates
which	are	at Exh.22, 23, and 24. So far	as the
documents	a	t Exh.23 and 24 are concerned, the	same
pertain	to	Dr.Anjani Ganesh Idgunji and there is	no
doubt	about	the genuineness of the said	documents.
However,		the Appellant is not Dr.Anjani Ganesh	Idgunji.
The	learned	trial Judge, therefore, held that	the

¶159

: 31 :

¶160

allegations	of	forger	y	as	re	g	ards	the		documents	at
Exhs.23	and	24	are	no	t		established	.	T	herefore,	the
learned	trial	Judge	held		that		the	forged		documents	were
not	used for	the	purp	ose	of		cheating.		Tha	t is	the
reason	why	the	learned		tri	al	Judge	h	as	recorded	a
finding	of	acquittal	in	so	fa	r	as	the	of	fences	under
section	465, 468,	and	471	ar	e		concerne	d.	The	view	taken
by	the lear	ned	trial	Judg	e		as	regards		the	offences
alleged	under	sections		468,	4	6	5, 471	and	308	of	the
Indian	Penal	Code	is	certa	inly		a p	ossible		view	which
could	have	been	taken	on	th	e	basis	of	the	evidence	on
record.	Even	ass	uming	that	i	t	is	possible	to	draw	a

¶161

different conclusion, it is no ground to interfere in an

¶162

Appeal against acquittal.

¶163

The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 has

¶164

made a submission that	the	sentences	imposed	are	on the
higher side and	dispropo	rtionate.	The		maximum
substantive sentence for	the	offence un	der se	ction	419
is three years. That	is the	sentence	imposed	b	y the
trial Court. This is	a case	where	the A	ppellant	claimed
to be a Gynaecologist.	She	not only	exami	ned	patients
and prescribed medicines	but	she	also		performed
surgeries. It is true	that	the pros	ecution	has	not led
any evidence to show that	any	mishap at	the	hands	of the
Appellant had taken	place.	However,	the	fact	remains
that without possessing	any	requisite	quali	fications	and

¶165

: 32 :

¶166

the	registrat	ion	as	required	by	la	w, the	Appellant
carried	on	her	medical	practice	in	a	brazen manner	and
went	to	the	extent	of	perf	orming	surgeries.	Such
offender		deserves	m	aximum	punishm	ent.	Therefore,	for

¶167

the offence under section 419 of the Penal Code, the

¶168

sentence of three years is certainly justified.

¶169

31.		F	or the offence under section 420 of the IPC the
maximum	se	ntenc	e provided is 7 years. In the	deposition
of	P.W.4		P.S.Sukumar he has stated that on the b	asis of
false	rep	resen	tation made by the Appellant, the	Bank
sanctioned		loan	of Rs.3,60,000/-. In the	entire
deposition		h	e has not stated that the	Appellant
committed	an	y	default in repayment of the loan amo	unt or
that	the		Appellant defrauded the bank by not	repaying
the	amount		advanced. The learned Counsel for	the
Appellant		ac	ross the bar made a statement that th	e loan
amount		has	been repaid by the Appellant with	interest.
The	offic	er	of the bank examined before the Court	has
not st	ated	that	the loan amount was repaid. Howev	er, he
has	also		not stated that any default was committed	by
the	Appel	lant	in repayment of the loan. So far as	the
question		of	sentence is concerned, the observations	of
the	Apex		Court in the case of B.G.Goswami v/s.	Delhi
Administra	tion		(AIR 1973 SC 1457) are relevant,	though
the	case		before the Apex Court was the one under	the

¶170

Prevention of Corruption Act. The Apex Court held that:

¶171

: 33 :

¶172

"Now the question of sentence	is always	a
difficult question, requiring as	it	does,
proper adjustment and balancin	of	various
considerations which weigh with	a	judicial
mind in determining its appropria	te quantum	in
a given case. The main	purpose of	the
sentence broadly stated is that	the	accused
must realise that he has comm	itted an	act
which is not only harmful to	the society	of
which he forms an integral part	but is	also
harmful to his own future,	both as	an
individual and as a member of	the	society.
Punishment is designed to protect	society	by
deterring potential offenders as	also	by
preventing the guilty party from	repeating	the
offence. It is also designed	to reform	the
offender and re-claim him as a	law	abiding
citizen for the good of the	society as	a
whole. Reformatory, deterrent	and	punitive
aspects of punishment thus play	their due	part
in judicial thinking while	determining	this
question. In modern	civilized	societies,
however, reformatory aspect is	being	given
somewhat greater importance. To	o lenient	as
well as too harsh sentences	both lose	their
efficaciousness. One does not	deter and	the

¶173

: 34 :

¶174

other			may frustrate		thereby	ma	king		the
offender supplied)	a	harde	ned criminal."(Emphasi	s
In this case		the	the prosecution	has	not	made	out	a	case
of any		actual	monetary loss	being	caused	to	the		Bank.
The allegation		of	the prosecution	ends	by	sayin	g	that	by
making a			false and disho	nest	representa	tion,	the		Bank
was induced		to	sanction loan.	The	Apex	Court	has		held
in the	cas	e o	f B.G.Goswami	(supra)	that	too	lenient		as
well as		too	harsh	sentences	bot	h	lose		their
efficaciousness becau	se	one doe	s not deter and the other
may frustrate.

¶175

32.		The	maximum	punish	ment prescribed for th	e
offence	u	nder	section	420	has been	imposed	in	this	case
though	the	actual	mone	tary	loss to the	Bank	has	not	been
established	.		While	dec	iding the que	stion	of	quantum	of
sentence		in	a	given	case,	proper	adjust	ment	and
balancing	of		various	cons	iderations which	wei	gh	with	the
judicial	mind	h	as to	be	made for	arriving	at	app	ropriate
quantum	of		punishment	.	It is true	that	one	of	the
objects	of		sentence	is	that the acc	used	must		realise
that	he	or	she	has c	ommitted an act	which	is	not	only
harmful	to	the	society	but	is also har	mful to	him	or	her
in	future		as a	membe	r of the soci	ety.	While		deciding
the	qua	ntum	of	sentenc	e the reform	atory,	deterrent		and

¶176

: 35 :

¶177

punitive	asp	ects have to	be	considered.	The pros	ecution
is	of	the year 1987	based	on the	incident of com	mission
of offe	nce	which relates	to	the year 19	85-86. More	than
20 ye	ars	have gone	by a	nd the prese	nt age of	the
Appellant		must be above	55.	The Appel	lant was on	bail
all	throu	ghout. The	offen	ce under sec	tion 420 of	the
Penal	Code	has been	alleg	ed in	respect of	loan
transaction		with the	Syndi	cate Bank.	The pros	ecution
has	not	even alleged	that	any monitory	loss has	been
caused	to	the Bank.	Th	erefore, in	my view,	the
substantive		sentence under	s	ection 420	of the	IPC
deserves		to be reduced	to R.	I. for 3	years. H	owever,
fine	amo	unt of Rs.10	,000/-	has to be	maintained.	The
learned		trial Judge	has	directed that	the sub	stantive
sentences		shall run	separatel	y so also	the sentences	in

¶178

default. In my view the sentences will have to be

¶179

directed to run concurrently.

¶180

Hence the following order is passed:

¶181

(i) The order of conviction passed against

¶182

the Appellant is confirmed.

¶183

The	order	of	sentence	is modified	to	a
limited	exte	nt	and it	is directed		that
for	the	offence	under	section 420	of	the
IPC,	the	App	ellant	is sentenced		to

¶184

: 36 :

¶185

undergo R.I. for 3 years. Rest of the order passed by the trial Court as regards the substantive sentences, the amounts of fine and sentences imposed in

¶186

default of payment of fine is maintained.

¶187

(iii) The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The sentences in default of payment of fine are also

¶188

directed to run concurrently.

¶189

(iv) The order of the trial Court granting set

¶190

off under section 428 is also confirmed.

¶191

(v) The Appellant is directed to surrender to bail. The Appellant shall be taken in custody for undergoing the sentence.

¶192

(vi) The Criminal Appeal No.656 of 1989 is accordingly partly allowed.

¶193

(vii) The Criminal Appeal No.49 of 1990 against

¶194

the order of acquittal is dismissed.

¶195

At this stage the learned Counsel for the Appellant prays that sufficiently long time be granted to surrender. He submits that the Appellant was on bail

¶196

: 37 :

¶197

throughout	the		pendency	of	the	trial	and	the appeal.	He
submits		that	the	Appellant	ha	s rema	ined	present at	the
time o	f	h	earing	of the	App	eal.	He	states that	the
Appellant		may	not	get	a	copy	of	the	Judgment
immediately.			The	learned	A	.P.P.	op	posed the	said
prayer.			Considering	the	fa	cts an	d ci	rcumstances	of the
case,	the		Appellant	is	granted	time	of	six weeks	from
today	to		surrender	subject	to	the	condition	that for	a
period	of		six	weeks	from	today,	the	Appellant	will
report		to	the	Officer-i	n-charge	of	the	Bhayandar	Police

¶198

Station, District Thane every day in the morning at

¶199

11.00 a.m.

¶200

Judge.

The State of Maharashtfa v. Aruna Harischandra Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtfa v. Aruna Harischandra Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh J. Tare Vs the State of Maharashtra

R.N. Sawant and Ors. . Vs Ravi Mannan and Anr.

Malhar Nagnath Sakhare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aruna Harishchandra Patil Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Murlidhar @ Hiralal Kashinath Darade @ Ramdas Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Ashok Sabnis Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.