HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7179 of 2007 & 7275 OF 2007 DATE:26-08-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7179 OF 2007 BETWEEN Vasantraj Pandit …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.O., I Town Police Station, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent CRIMINAL PETITION No.7275 OF 2007 BETWEEN Raj Vasant Pandit …Petitioner AND Bejjam Srinivas & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7179 of 2007 & 7275 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District (re-numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda), wherein the petitioners were arrayed as A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chits, Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 3 and 5 of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. A.1-petitioner in Crl.P.No.7179 of 2007 is the son of A.2- petitioner in Crl.P.No.7275 of 2007. A.1 having branch office at Hyderabad, is engaged in money circulation scheme under the guise of Multy Level Marketing Plan and selling of Magnetic beds valued ranging from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.1,79,000/- imported from Korea under the caption of “Japan Life India Total Sleeping System”. A.1 being the proprietor of the Money Circulation Scheme established ‘Japan Life India’ which is running in the name of Frontier Trading Bombay having established the branch office at Hyderabad at premises No.6-3-853/8, shop Nos.101, 102, Meridan Plaza, Ameerpet, Hyderabad from 17th January 2001. The firm marketed four types of beds called: (1) Jacquard set; (2) Deluxe Set; (3) M.L.Magfeather Set; and (4) Magstar. This establishment had branches in 19 cities of India spread over in 11 states and Union Territory. On 18.5.2002, an anonymous petition enclosing booklet of “Japan Life India”, a money circulation scheme, was addressed to Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District stating that some people of Nalgonda were victims of the scheme but none were interested in lodging a complaint, as they have already lost their hard earnings and interested in getting the money, and requested to take necessary action before many others fall prey. On receipt of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.105 of 2002 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chits, Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 3 and 5 of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. After due investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. To quash the same, the present petitions are filed. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for A.2-petitioner in Crl.P.No.7275 of 2007 contends that except the allegation that A.2 allowed A.1 to run the business from the premises belonged to A.2 situated at apartment Nos.913 and 1109 to 1112, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai, there is no allegation against A.2 about his conspiring with A.1 for the offences alleged. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against A.2 on the face of the charge itself, cannot be continued and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed against him. Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A.1- petitioner in Crl.P.No.7179 of 2007 contends that mere selling of magnetic beds which were not curing the bed-related diseases to the users itself will not amount to any offence. It is contended that A.1 was charged for the similar offences in C.C.No.11774 of 2003 and he was acquitted of all the charges by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide judgment, dated 17.9.2004. Therefore, if the prosecution is allowed to continue, the same is nothing but abuse of process of law and he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. The entire charge sheet allegations clearly discloses that A.1, who is the proprietor of the firm called ‘Frontier Trading’ established a branch office at Ameerpet, Hyderabad to market four types of beds viz., (1) Jacquard set; (2) Deluxe Set; (3) M.L.Magfeather Set; and (4) Magstar. The sale of the Total Sleeping System takes place by its members who already joined in the scheme and these members have to introduce other members at least three in number to get their commission, which clearly indicates that the thrust of the plan is to make easy money rather than to sell any goods or services. D.V.D., which was seized during the course of investigation, which contain the lectures of A.1 also shows that many of the innocent persons were lured by the commission offered by A.1 on enrolling the members for purchasing of the beds. L.W.59-doctor, who is a member of Medical Council of India opined that as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973 and Central Council of India Medicine Act of 1970, only qualified persons in the respective fields with a registered and recognized qualification in the respective system of medicine are eligible to prescribe medicines as well as any appliance, device, tools instructions and such other things that are required for giving cure to various ailments. A.1 is not a qualified person in any of the system and thereby he violated the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 10 of A.P. Medical Practitioners Registration Act of 1968 and Central Council of India Medicine Act, 1970. The accused comes under the category of quack doctor. As A.1 does not possess any qualification, he does not have any competence whatsoever to prescribe an appliance or device or the Japan Life Total Sleeping System thereby he violated Sections 3,4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act 1978) and is also liable for punishment under Section 420 IPC. Prima facie, the allegations attract the offences under Sections 3(b) and 4(b) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for A.1 that A.1 was acquitted in similar offences, it is to be seen that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.11774 of 2003 acquitted A.1 to A.44 on the ground that none of the witnesses including the complainant in the investigation have stated about the conspiracy of the accused and therefore, the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC have not been made out and the prosecution has not let in any oral and documentary evidence to establish that the accused violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 to attract the penal provisions of the said Act. Therefore, since A.1 was acquitted in that case on account of failure of prosecution to produce evidence, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings in the present case particularly, when the charge sheet prima facie makes out a case for the alleged offences against A.1. Therefore, the proceedings as against A.1 cannot be quashed. Coming to the case of A.2-petitioner in Crl.P.No.7275 of 2007, in the entire charge sheet, the only allegation made against him is that A.2 being lessee of apartment Nos.913 and 1109 to 1112, Dalamat Towers, Mumbai allowed his son-A.1 to run the business of selling the beds under the name of Frontier Trading in the year 2001-2002. The apartment No.913 is under liquidation by order of Court and in apartment Nos.1109 to 1112, Pan Music and Magazine and JLI, an insurance brokerage establishment are existing which are being run by A.2. A.1 carried out the business under the name and style of ‘Frontier Trading’ by opening his office in the said premises, which are under the occupation of A.2. Mere allowing A.1 to establish his business in the premises owned by A.2 cannot lead to a criminal conspiracy unless he is a partner of the firm ‘Frontier Trading’. Mere accommodating his son-A.1 to open his offence in the premises belonging to A.2 itself will not amount to committing of criminal conspiracy by A.2 with A.1 or vicariously liable to the offences committed by his son-A.1. In view of the same, on the whole reading of the charge sheet allegations, no case is made out against A.2 and therefore, allowing the impugned proceedings to continue against him is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings as against A.2 are quashed. In the result, Crl.P.No.7179 of 2007 is dismissed and Crl.P.No.7275 of 2007 is allowed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 26, 2010 Tsr.