Dismissed

Chhoga Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2018CRLMP/949/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the order framing charges against a petitioner. The petitioner was accused of practicing allopathy without RC or permission. He submitted certificates for alternative medicine training, but the Court held these were insufficient to prove RC registration or state permission.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order of framing of charge affirmed; trial court record sent back.

Chhoga Lal Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 949/2017

¶3

Chhoga Lal S/o Late Shri Panna Lal , By Caste Rao, Resident Of Chamunderi, P.s. Nana, Tehsil- Bali, District- Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

06/07/2018

¶12

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, Distt. Pali (for short ‘the revisional court’) whereby, the Criminal Revision Petition No.39/2015 has been dismissed.

¶13

The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.5.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bali (for short ‘the trial court’) in Case No.372/11 whereby, the trial court has ordered for framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

[CRLMP-949/2017]

¶16

15(2) of the Rajasthan Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’).

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the Medical Officer, Government Hospital Nana, Distt. Pali has filed a complaint against the petitioner and seven other persons while alleging that these persons are not registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council and had also not obtained any permission from the State Government for practicing as an allopathy doctor but are doing the said work illegally. It is mentioned in the complaint that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pali has issued a notice to the petitioner and seven other persons asking them to submit any proof allowing them to allopathy practice but the petitioner has failed to provide any proof regarding his registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council and has failed to produce any permission granted by the State Government to do allopathy practice.

¶18

On receiving the said complaint, the Police Station Nana, Distt. Pali registered an FIR No.26/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 15(2) of the Act of 1956. During the course of investigation, the police has recorded statements of several witnesses who confirmed that the petitioner is doing allopathy practice at Chamundari Bus Stand posing himself as a registered medical doctor possessing requisite qualifications. The police has concluded that though the petitioner is not possessing any qualification for practicing as a medical doctor and is also not registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council and has failed to produce any permission from the State Government to practice as an allopathy doctor, therefore, prima

¶19

(3 of 5)

¶20

[CRLMP-949/2017]

¶21

facie he has committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 15(2) of the Act of 1956.

¶22

The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 21.6.2011 and thereafter vide order dated 25.5.2015 ordered for framing of charge against him for the above referred offences.

¶23

Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the reivisional court, however, the same has been dismissed. Hence, this criminal misc. petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of a certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sirohi and from the said certificate, it is clear that the petitioner got training as a Jan Swasthya Rakshak in the year 1978-79. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in possession of certificates issued by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Bhartiya Ayurveda Seva Sangh and from the said certificates, it is clear that the petitioner is competent to practice as an allopathy doctor. It is contended that the said documentary evidence has not been taken into consideration either by the police or by the courts below and, therefore, the order of framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 15(2) of the Act of 1956 passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court are liable to be set aside.

¶25

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that as a matter of fact, neither the petitioner is registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council nor any permission is granted to him by the State Government for

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

[CRLMP-949/2017]

¶28

practicing as an allopathy doctor and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record.

¶30

The police during the course of investigation have recorded statements of several witnesses who confirmed that the petitioner is indulged in allopathy practice by posing himself as a qualified doctor and he is running a clinic in which he is sitting as a doctor wearing white apron and treating the patients with allopathy medicines. However, during the course of investigation, the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that he is entitled to do allopathy practice or he is registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council or has obtained permission from the State Government to do so.

¶31

The trial court as well as the revisional court have taken into consideration the documents such as certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sirohi certifying the petitioner as Jan Swasthya Rakshak and the certificates produced by the petitioner issued by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Bhartiya Ayurveda Seva Sangh but the courts below are of the opinion that the said certificates are not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is qualified to do allopathy practice.

¶32

This Court is of the opinion that whatever certificates submitted by the petitioner before the trial court do not suggest that the petitioner is registered with the Medical Council of the State or he is permitted to do allopathy practice in the State of Rajasthan.

¶33

In the absence of any such documentary evidence, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the trial court has committed any

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

[CRLMP-949/2017]

¶36

illegality in framing charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences when the evidence of this effect is available on record that the petitioner is indulged in allopathy practice by posing himself as a qualified doctor.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any case for interference in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶40

ms rathore

Chhoga Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhoga Lal v. State

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

Durga Ram @ Durgesh Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Laduram Vs State

Smt Kamla Devi and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Ram Lal Gurjar Vs State

Narendra Solanki Vs State

Manish Kumar Vs State