1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 82/2009 Ashishkumar Ishwar Chakrawarti ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. Superintendent of Police, Buldhana and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. R. Puri, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D. M. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicants. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 28 th JULY, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The applicant faced trial before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/2006 for charge under Section 33 (1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act. The present applicant was convicted under Section 33 (1) (2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further orders regarding confiscation of certain articles were also passed. This was done by judgment and order dated 17.03.2007. The applicant filed appeal in the District Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 13/2007. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana, by judgment 2 and order dated 07.04.2009 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 3. Having heard learned Advocates for both the sides, both the Courts have proceeded to record conviction on the ground that the applicant has not complied with the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act inasmuch as registration, as required under the said Act has not been done. According to the non applicant, it was necessary for the applicant to practice within the State of Maharashtra, enroll himself with Maharashtra Medical Practitioner’s Association and then conduct his professional activities in Maharashtra. The petitioner, could not produce the appropriate registration before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and that is how conviction came to be recorded. 4. An attempt was made by the applicant to show that he was governed by order passed by High Court in a petition, by which coercive action was not to be taken up against certain persons, who are members of Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors Association. In the first place, that order was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate 3 First Class and even otherwise nothing is produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class to show that the present applicant was a member of the said Association. In substance, the applicant had no defence in the trial Court and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted him under the relevant sections as mentioned aforesaid. 5. After having considered the entire record, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality shown by the applicant in the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class or learned Principal Sessions Judge. 6. It was sought to be argued that the Medical Officer, who lodged complaint with the Police, had done so out of spite and because of professional rivalry. In my view, that aspect cannot give any benefit to the applicant because the applicant has violated mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act. Whether the action initiated against the applicant was out of professional rivalry or not is not a point. 7. It was also argued before this Court that no patient has made a grievance about the alleged offence. 4 Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it is difficult to accept that a patient would understand niceties of the provisions of law and requirement of the applicant registering himself as a person authorised to practice in Maharashtra. A common man, who is in need of treatment may visit a particular dispensary, primarily looking to the treatment facility at such dispensary and he would not know whether a particular person, who is running the said dispensary, has registered himself under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act. In fact, Dr. Madan Sonone, is a person attached to Primary Health Department and, therefore, he was conscious of the activities carried out by the applicant and that is how he took courage to file complaint against the applicant. Hence, arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant that institution of the prosecution against him was malafide cannot be accepted. 8. Both the Courts have taken appropriate view of the matter and they appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, the application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Hence, the 5 order. The application is dismissed. The applicant shall surrender his bail forthwith. JUDGE kahale