^y^~ !^ ,,.^:.^' %<t6'r' w ^'k,<^ . ?,. '?-1" ;-r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P No. ^2^2>9 /2008 APPLICANT ^^.. ^O'^-.^'f vers"S ^•^ Dr. Baharta Prasad S/o. w .y,5c-l^-l£;M&y£^'"^ Dhaniram Chandra,"'A' ~ R/o.'" Sarangarh, - District- Raigarh (C.G.) \H gp»'- NON APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh Through :- District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PRQCEDURE, L-^ced. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON'BLE MR. JU8TI(aB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR CRJM.P.MO. 237/2008 PETITIOMBR Dr. Befaarta Prasad versus RESPOHDBNT State of CUiattisgarh Shri Amit Shanna, counsel for the petitioiier. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for tfae State. PEITITION U/8 482 OF THB CR.P.C. ORDER (15.03.201(^ Heard on adiu^sioii. Tfais petition filed zinder Section 482 of the Code of Crimiaal ProceduTe is directed against the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by fhe Addltional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Distnct Raigarh. ia Crimmal Revision N0. 258/2000 affirmmg the order dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Sub Divisioaal Magistrate, Sarangarh iu M.Cr.C.No.419(B)/2000 by which aftcr initiatmg proceediags uader Scction 133 of th.e Code of Crimmal Procedure, ia the pubUc iaterest the petitioner who is a quack has beea directed not to run fhe Pathology Laboratoiy, X-ray and Sonography inachine. 2. Contention of the counsel for tbe petitioner is that uader Section 133 of fhe Code of Crimiaal Procedujpe no such order caa be passed agamst the petitioner because fhe act of the petitioner caim.Gt be termed as pubUc nuisance. He submits that if the petitioner is at fault fhe adaaiaMtxatton can take action against him uudcr fhe provisions relating to inedical profession and not under aay law. He submits that the action of the respondent amounts to depriviag of the petitioner finoin his fundamental right of eamiaB UveUhood. li^t^^F- f»'..f^ 3. On the ofher haad, supportmg tbe impugned judgment it has been argued by Shri Goverdhan tbat fhe learaed Sub Divisional Magistrate aad fhe Revisional Court are fully justified iu passiag thc order under Sectkm 133 of the Code ofCriuunal ProceduTe. He subanits fhat the case of the petitioner squarely faUs under Section 133 (l)(b) oftfae Code of Crimiu.al Procedure and the present is a case where not oiily fhe petitioner was providing tceatment to fhe persons but was nuuung a Pafhology Laboratoiy aad X-ray clixiic. He submits that fhe action of ffae State is fully justificd in prevcntiag thc petitfoner fix>in playing wifh fhe Mves ofpoor people. l^^;^^^.^fe^^ WK--^'KVSKSSWS^ 4. I havc heard coiinsel for fhe partiea. Admittedly, fhe pctitioner is not a quaUfied doctor to run eifher a Pafhology laboxatoiy or to operate X-aay aad Sonography machiae. Afiter considering the entire material leamed Sub Dwisional Magistrate has passed a detafled order which has been affinned by the revteional Court. I find sufficient foroe in fhe ai^ument of thc State counsel that quack Uke fhc petitioner cannot be permitted to play wifti fhe Ufe ofthousands ofpoorpeopte and fherefore fhe oiders impugned passed by tbe revisional Cotut and the Sub Divisioiial Magistrate caanot be interfered wifh. The petition has no substance and is accordir^ty dismissed as such. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge