IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-23286 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 11, 2010 Jyoti Parkash Mandal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS U.T. Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the condition imposed by the bail Court while dealing with the case of bail of the petitioner in case FIR No.263 dated 24.6.2009 under Section 15 of the MCI Act, 1956; Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970; and Section 420 IPC, registered with Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-23286 of 2009 [2] contends that vide Order, Annexure P-3, the petitioner has been allowed regular bail, however, the same has been granted subject to the following condition:- “......However, it is made clear that the accused/ applicant will not run any medical clinic on the basis of the certificate, which as per the case of prosecution is fake. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.” Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that the issue has been considered by the Government of India. The Government of India had constituted a Committee. The following decision has been taken:- “The Committee developed essential & desirable criteria for grant of recognition to a new stream of medicine and analysed the different streams of `Alternative medicine viz. Ayurveda, Siddha Unani, Homoeopathy, Yoga & Naturopathy, Eectropathy/ Electronomoeopathy, Acupuncture, magneteotherapy, Reiki, Reflexology, Urine Therapy/ Autourine Therapy, Hypnotherapy, Aromotherapy, Colour Therapy, Franic Healing, Gems & Stone Therapy and Music Therapy.” Learned counsel for the respondent- State further contends that admittedly, the petitioner is not practicing in any of the fields to which recognition has been given. Learned counsel further contends that Central Council of Indian Medicines, New Delhi, vide its Memo dated 30.6.2009 has clearly stated that alternative medicine does not come under the purview of Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 and is Crl. Misc. No. M-23286 of 2009 [3] not recognised by CCIM. Having considered the issue, I find that the petitioner is only relying on a certificate of Institute of Alternative Medicines, in context of which, Central Council of Indian Medicines has specifically opined that it is not recognised. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any certificate or document under which the petitioner can be allowed to practice in alternative medicines. No ground for interference with the order passed by the bail Court, under the circumstances, is made out. The condition imposed by the bail Court is justified. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 11, 2010 JUDGE avin