Criminal Revision No.303/2010 14.07.2011 Shri Manish Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Case is listed for final hearing at motion stage. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by J.M.F.C. (Shri Varindra Kumar Tiwari), Jabalpur in criminal case no.20068/10 by which the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') were framed. Prosecution's case in short is that the Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Barela, District Jabalpur has submitted a report on 20.8.2007 that the applicant was treating the patients in allopathy medicines. Various patients namely Ku. Kamni D/o Ramesh Kumar Vanshkar, Ku. Garima D/o Munnalal and Sagar Vanshkar expired due to treatment by the applicant. Guardians of those sick persons took the medicines from the applicant, but ultimately sick persons could not be cured and they expired. In the report, it was further submitted that the applicant has a degree of M.P. Ayurvedic & Unani Chikitsha Procedure and Prakratik Chikitsa of the concerned Board and, therefore, he was not entitled to do the treatment under allopathy system. In support of the report, Ramesh Vanshkar, Prahlad Kumar, Garibdas Chakraverti and Kishan Vanshkar were examined. On the report given by B.M.O. Berela District Jabalpur, police Barela registered a case and after due investigation, challan was filed before the competent Court. Learned J.M.F.C., Jabalpur after considering the evidence produced before him, framed the charges as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Annexure-3 is a degree issued by Jabalpur University in the year, 1972 by which the applicant was authorized to administer with modern medicine. He was also authorized to do the surgery of the patient. In this connection, a notification no.F-15-4-2003-55-M.E.-2-Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940 dated 19.6.2003 has been issued by the Medical Education Department, which was published in Official Gazette. Photocopy of that notification has produced as Annexure-4. By such notification, it was directed that a person, who took the experience of administration of modern medicines can administer allopathy medicines up to the extent of his training. According to the various witnesses, the patients were shown to the applicant in the very beginning and thereafter, the patients were referred to Dr. Sudhalika and other expert doctors. It is nowhere established that the applicant administered such allopathy medicines, which were not in the purview his training. Under such circumstances, offence under Section 24 of the Act is not made out. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since the applicant has done the treatment of the patients with authorized certificate, therefore, it cannot be said that he cheated the patients and their parents to obtain the fees from various patients, therefore, no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Learned J.M.F.C., Jabalpur has committed error while framing the charges. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the applicant has a degree for limited purpose and, therefore, he is responsible for the offence under Section 24 of the Act. He treated the patients with such method for which he was not authorized and, therefore, he cheated the patients to get a huge fees from them. Consequently, learned J.M.F.C.,Jabalpur has not committed any error or perversity in passing the impugned order. As far as the offence under Section 24 of the Act is concerned, it is very much clear from the degree issued by Jabalpur University in the year 1972 that the applicant could administer some medicines, which are covered in modern medicine. He had a subject of Pharmacology, Modern Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in his course, therefore, it cannot be said that he was totally prohibited to administer allopathy medicines. Vide notification dated 19.6.2003, Medical Education Department has cleared the situation that the applicant could administer allopathy medicines up to limit for which he was trained. Learned Panel Lawyer could not say that copy of notification issued, is not a genuine notification. Under such circumstances, that notification is binding to the parties, therefore, the applicant could administer such allopathy medicine, which were within the purview of his training. No witness has stated that the applicant has administered such medicines, which were not in the purview of his training. On the contrary, it is mentioned by almost witnesses that after initial treatment, the patient was shifted to some other doctor and expert doctor, therefore, it cannot be said that death of such patients was caused by the applicant due to administration of wrong medicine. Provision of Section 24 of the Act may be read as under:- 24. Penalty. If any person whose name is not enrolled on the State Medical Register practices as a registered medical practitioner, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend two three years and with fine which may extend to Five Thousand Rupees; Provided that,- (i) the person possessing bachelor in Ayurvedic with Modern Medicine and Surgery Degree and registered with the Madhya Pradesh Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine and Naturopathy shall not be punishable under this section for prescribing allopathic medicines or practicing surgery if his registration certificate authorizes him to do so; (ii) the medical practitioner entitled to the privileges of section-27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (No.102 of 1956) shall not be punishable under this section for his non- registration in Madhya Pradesh. In the particular provision, there is a proviso that a doctor having a degree in Ayurved with Modern Medicine shall not be punished for the offence, if he prescribes allopathy medicine. Looking to that proviso, no offence under Section 24 of the Act is made out against the applicant. When the applicant was within the purview of his degree then it cannot be said that, in obtaining fees for treatment to various patients, he has cheated the patients and their parents, therefore, no cheating is established in the present case. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Jabalpur is baseless and of without basis. Learned J.M.F.C. has committed error and perversity in passing such order, therefore, it would be proper to interfere into the impugned order by way of this revision. Consequently, revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 2.2.2010 is hereby set aside by discharging the applicant from the charges of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court to abandon the proceedings. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj