Allowed

Sri Suresh Kumar K G v. State by Town Police

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021CRL.P/9509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged criminal proceedings against his diagnostic centre. Court held that because the authority delayed renewal consideration for 18 months despite a timely application, continuing proceedings would cause miscarriage of justice, leading to quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2019 (new) / C.C.No.114/2018 (old) pending before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura, are quashed.

Sri Suresh Kumar K G Vs State by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9509/2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI SURESH KUMAR K.G., S/O LATE GUBBIVEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SHIVA SATHVIKA DIAGNOSTIC LAB AND X RAY, OPP:GOVT.HOSPITAL, T.G.TANK ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SRINIVASAN T., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE BY TOWN POLICE CHICKBALLAPUR, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

DR.RAVISHANKAR DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶14

R2- SERVED))

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.114/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 19 OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, SECTION 420 OF IPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, CHIKKABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2019 (new) / C.C.No.114/2018 (old) pending before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura, for the alleged offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶20

Heard Sri Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶21

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: .

¶22

¶23

The petitioner runs a Diagnostic Centre in the name and style of Shiva Sathvika Diagnostic Lab and X- ray Centre, opposite to the District Government Hospital. The petitioner is in possession of a license to run the said Diagnostic Centre issued by the competent authority on 24.10.2011. This certificate of registration is also appended to the writ petition. The registration to run the Diagnostic Centre was valid for a period of 5 years from 24.10.2011.

¶24

Two days prior to the expiry of the said license, the petitioner submitted an application seeking renewal of the said registration. During the pendency of the consideration of the application for renewal, the authorities inspected the Diagnostic Centre of the petitioner and sought documents with regard to the registration of the said Diagnostic Centre. The petitioner submitted the application that was submitted to the authorities for renewal, which was pending consideration at the hands of the competent authority. Holding that the petitioner was not in possession of a registration to run the Diagnostic Centre, a

¶25

¶26

complaint came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 19 of the Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The police after investigation, filed a charge sheet under Section 19 of the Act and Section 420 of IPC.

¶27

Section 19 of the act reads as follows.

¶28

“ Section 19 - Penalties:

¶29

(1) Where any person establishes, runs or maintains a Private Medical Establishment without registration granted under section 7 he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend upto ten thousand rupees.

¶30

(2) When a person is convicted under sub-section (1), the Registration Authority shall direct immediate closure of the un-registered Private Medical Establishment, except where a registration is cancelled or suspended and an appeal filed against such cancellation or suspension is pending.

¶31

(3) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall contain a direction that the inpatients of such unregistered Private Medical Establishment shall be transferred to such other Private Medical Establishment as may be specified in that order and it shall also contain such other provisions as to the care and custody of such inpatients pending such transfer.

¶32

(4) Where any person runs or maintains a Private Medical Establishment in contravention of the

¶33

¶34

conditions of registration or contravenes the provisions of section 12 or 13, or fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (2). he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

¶35

(5) Where a person contravenes any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder he shall, on conviction, be punishable with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.”

¶36

Section 19 deals with penalties to be imposed on a private

¶37

medical establishment running without registration. The registration of a private medical establishment is dealt with under Section 3 of the Act and the same reads as follows.

¶38

“3. Registration of Private Medical Establishments.- On and after the appointed day, no Private Medical Establishment shall be established, run or maintained in the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of registration granted under this Act:

¶39

Provided that a Private Medical Establishment in existence immediately prior to the appointed day shall apply for such registration within ninety days from the appointed day and pending orders thereon

¶40

¶41

may continue to run or maintain till the disposal of the application.”

¶42

(emphasis supplied)

¶43

In terms of the afore-extracted provisions of law, a private medical establishment should be run only after obtaining registration being granted under the Act. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act deals with an application submitted for registration of a private medical establishment, which is also in existence can continue to operate till the application for renewal is considered and an order is passed by the authority. On the date of inspection, it is not in dispute that petitioner had submitted his application for renewal of registration, which is two days’ prior to the expiry of the registration i.e., on 24.10.2016. The submission of the said application is not in dispute and cannot be doubted as the competent authority renews the registration of the petitioner on 31-03-2018, close to 18 months after the submission of the said application. It is in the interregnum i.e., between 24.10.2016 and 31-03-2018, the petitioner is alleged to be running the medical establishment without registration.

¶44

¶45

The petitioner having submitted an application for renewal, it was gross dereliction of his duty on the part of the competent authority, who has kept the application pending for close to 18 months. Having kept the application pending for 18 months and before an order is passed on the application submitted for renewal, a case could not have been initiated. Therefore, no offence under Sections 3 and 19 of the Act, can even be imagined to be made out by the petitioner in terms of the afore- extracted provisions of the Act.

¶46

If the petitioner had an establishment or running a Private Medical Establishment without obtaining registration at the outset, it would perhaps be termed as ‘cheating’, which is not the case at hand. The folly on the part of the Officials of the respondents cannot be imposed on the petitioner as the application for renewal of the registration is considered only after 18 months and therefore, the blame cannot be placed on the petitioner for running the establishment without registration that too, in the light of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act.

¶47

¶48

Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings would

¶49

undoubtedly result in miscarriage of justice.

¶50

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶53

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.60/2019 (new) / C.C.No.114/2018 (old) pending before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura, stands

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj

CT:MJ

Sri Suresh Kumar K G v. State by Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh Kumar K G v. State by Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sudeep Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Kumari Vs State of Karnataka

T K Abdul Javeed Vs State of Karnataka