IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.10 of 2009 (Dharmendra Wasudeoji Mandlik and another v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri D.R. Rupnarayan, Advocate for Applicants. Shri D.B. Patel, APP for Non-Applicant. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 22nd January, 2009 This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby he dismissed Criminal Appeals No.39 and 40 of 2004 and upheld the convictions of the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. The learned counsel for the applicants made available for my perusal a paper book containing evidence tendered at the trial, which was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the applicants also made available for my perusal two licences valid from 30-6-1998 to 31-12- 1999 for selling medicines in the shop by name M/s. Amit Surgicals. It is the case of the applicants that they are not running any dispensary or have not been projected themselves as doctors, but in fact they are running a medical shop. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that applicant No.1 is Haad Vaidya, a bone-setter, and not doctor. All the same, the evidence tendered shows that the appellants had projected that applicant No.1 was a doctor and a sign board containing his name and degrees DHMS and BEMS was displayed. Applicant No.1 has not been able to show that he does possess such degrees or that he has any registration from the concerned Medical Council. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge erred in convicting the applicants or the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in upholding those convictions. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that a false case was filed on account of a dispute between the landlord and tenant, has to be rejected. It may be that a case was filed because of the dispute between the landlord and tenant, but it has to be also held that the applicants have been projecting themselves as Medical Practitioners without having any valid registration and qualifications. In view of this, revision application is rejected. Judge. pdl