Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 Date of Decision: 10.3.2010 Hakam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petitioner Hakam Singh son of Keshar Singh was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, in case FIR No. 256 dated 7.12.1985 registered at Police Station Thaska Niranji (Kurukshetra), under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned trial Court concluded that the petitioner had cheated the general public by impersonating himself as a doctor, issued prescription slips to the patients, kept the medicines and was running a clinic, whereas he was not a qualified doctor. Therefore, vide judgment dated 28.8.1991, the trial Court convicted him for an offence under Section 419 IPC and vide order dated 29.8.1991 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 2 payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner went in appeal against his conviction and sentence, but failed. Thus, the present revision petition. The only question, which this Court has to answer is, as to whether a person, not having a professional qualification, projects or represents himself to be a qualified and carries out such profession amounts to deception or impersonation as defined under Section 419 IPC. To say in other words, if a person is not having a Degree of Law and represents himself to be an Advocate, by setting up an office and showcasing the library having books of law, whether that will amount to an offence falling within the ambit of Section 419 IPC or not. To draw an analogy further, whether a person represents himself to be a Police Officer, but otherwise not being appointed and wears a uniform of a Police Officer, whether such an act of that person will constitute an offence or not, is to be determined by this Court. At the outset, answer of the Court is in affirmative. To support this inference, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the case. Mange Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, was present along with companion police officials, when a secret information was received that Hakam Singh, petitioner, had set up a private clinic, practising as a doctor and prescribing medicines to the patients. Believing the said information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and, thereafter, a raid was conducted. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, on 29.5.1986, had charged the petitioner for an offence under Sections 419 and 468 IPC. The charge under Section 419 IPC reads as under:- Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 3 “That you on 7.12.1985 in the area of village Ismailabad you cheated the general public and Chamela Ram PW by way of personation posing yourself as doctor while you were not possessing any degree of the Registered Medical Practitioner and you represented yourself as doctor to Chamela PW and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419 I.P.C. and which is within my cognizance”. The prosecution has examined Dr. Suresh Chander, Medical Officer-cum-Incharge, S.H.C. Ismailabad, as PW.1, who stated that on 7.12.1985 at about 11.00 A.M., he along with police party, went to the shop of the petitioner, where two capsules of Tetracycline, one injection of Gentamycin, two capsules of Albercillin, and 86 tablets of Nuxvimica were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. He further stated that one prescription slip was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. He also stated that the English medicines can only be prescribed by a qualified doctor and the accused was not having any qualification to proclaim himself to be a doctor. It was stated further that outside the shop, a hoarding of Janta Clinic was put up. It was further that the accused had shown him a licence issued by the Ayurvedic and Unani Board, Bihar. For possessing this licence, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 468 IPC. PW.2 Sham Sunder, Photographer, had taken the photographs of the shop. PW.3 Sri Niwas, Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 4 Systems of Medicine, Haryana, Panchkula, stated that he gave his opinion Ex.PW.3/A. A perusal thereof reveals that nobody was authorised to sell or prescribe medicines without obtaining the registration from the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, Haryana. PW.4 Ram Singh, Head Constable, had registered the formal FIR Ex.PW.4/A, on receipt of a ruqa. PW.5 Gulzar Singh, Constable, was a member of raiding party. He had deposed regarding search and seizure of the medicines. PW.6 Ashok Bhamba stated that medicines can only be sold by a Registered Medical Practitioner and prescribing, selling, storing and possessing allopathic drugs, by an unauthorized person, an offence has been made under various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, who denied the same. No witness was examined in defence. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the certificate of possessing educational qualification from the concerned University was found to be forged as it had not issued any such certificate. But since no evidence was led by the prosecution to this effect, so, no conviction was recorded under Section 468 IPC. However, the trial Court held as under:- “16. Although, the initial burden lies on the Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 5 prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, yet the accused has also not fulfilled his duty to prove his innocence. The accused has not ever been able to explain at all as to why he had given the prescription slips to the PWs and as to why he was keeping the medicines in his possession without any licence etc. All these facts go to prove that the accused had cheated the public by personating himself to be qualified Doctor, which in fact, he was not, therefore, he was indulging in the act of cheating by personation. It may also not be out of context to add her that by prescribing the medicines without being a qualified Doctor, was an act, being done by accused in which lives of the many people were being put to great risk”. After making the above said observations, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 419 IPC. The lower Appellate Court relied upon the statements of PW.1 Dr. Suresh Chander and PW.5 Gulzar Singh, Constable, and held that the petitioner had deceived the general public by projecting himself as a doctor which he was not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Kerala High Court in Radha Sasidharan v. State of Kerala 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports 737. It was stated in the said judgment that a nurse had styled herself as a 'doctor' competent to treat patients, no offence under Section 419 IPC is made Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 6 out. It was further held as under:- “Even if she had pretended to be a doctor, though not really a doctor, she cannot be convicted for cheating by personation under Section 419, Indian Penal Code”. With due respect, I am not in agreement with the reasoning propounded in the above said case. Section 416 IPC specifically states that a person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. The term person is not to be construed in a very narrow sense. A reference can be made to the explanation to Section 416 IPC, which specifically states that the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. If person assumes imaginary office, qualification or makes persons to believe that he is possessing the requisite skill which is recognized by a necessary regulatory body, he cheats by personation. If a man makes other person to believe that he is a different personality than what he is, he commits an offence which falls within the ambit of Section 416 IPC and is punishable under Section 419 IPC. In view of the discussions held above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case and ingredients of an offence defined under Section 416 IPC are made out against the petitioner and he had rightly been convicted under Section 419 IPC by both the Courts below. Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1992 7 Hence, there is no merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 10, 2010 “DK”