Delhi District Court
State vs . Md. Zakir Rashid on 21 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SNEHIL SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-08, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, SAKET, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE VS. Md. Zakir Rashid
FIR NO: 1171/2014
P. S. Jamia Nagar
U/s 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act.
a Sl. No. of the case : 5201/2018
b Date of commission : 01.07.2013
c Date of institution of the case : 28.07.2018
d Name of the complainant : Dr. Girish Tyagi
e Name of the accused and his : Md. Zakir Rashid, S/o Sh. Lt. Syed
parentage Abdur Rashid, R/o R-236/6, Lane
No.2, Jogabai Extn., Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi.
F Offence complained of : 2(7) of Delhi Medical Council Act.
g Plea of accused : Not guilty
h Orders reserved on : 09.12.2022
i Final order : Accused Md. Zakir Rashid is
convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 27 of Delhi Medical
Council Act.
j Date of judgment : 21.01.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. As per the case of the prosecution that accused Md.
Zakir Rashid have been falsely assuming to be a medical FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 1 OF PAGE 14 practitioner and having been practicing allopathic system of medicine without possessing requisite medical qualifications as defined u/s 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997. On the said complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused Md. Zakir Rashid.
2. Vide order dated 23.04.2019, charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 was served upon the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses. PW1/Dr. Girish Tyagi deposed that PW1 is posted as Secretary at DMC. On 22.10.2013, PW1 received a letter/inspection report from Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parisad regarding practice of allopathy by two persons including the accused without being registered and without qualification. Thereafter, they issued show cause notice to the accused on 24.12.2013 to appear before the DMC on 08.01.2014. The accused neither appeared nor replied to the notice. Then they issued closure order dated 07.02.2014 to the accused to stop practicing allopathy and to close his clinic. On 18.02.2014 they issued a letter to SHO PS Jamia Nagar to register an FIR against the accused u/s 27 of DMC Act, Ex.PW1/A bearing signature of PW1 at point A. Certified copy FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 2 OF PAGE 14 of letter dated 22.10.2013 is Ex.PW 1/B (Colly-22) (OSR) from DBCP to DMC along with enclosures. Certified copy of show cause notice dated 24.12.2013 is Ex.PW1/C(OSR) bearing signature of PW1 at point A. Certified copy of closure order dated 07.02.2014 is Ex. PW1/D (OSR) bearing signature of PW1 at point A. PW1 gave reply to the notice of the IO which is Ex. PW 1/E bearing signature of PW1 at point A and submitted above said documents to the IO. Ld. APP for the State put leading questions to the witness wherein PW1 deposed that the accused use to do illegal practice at E-206/1, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi and PW1 also admitted the suggestion that PW1 had given the documents to the IO vide letter dated 24.01.2014. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein PW1 stated that PW1 had sent the complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police by post. PW1 had never personally visited the PS w.r.t. the present case. PW1 admitted that his statement was never recorded by the IO during investigation. PW1 admitted that PW1 had never visit the clinic of the accused personally. PW1 admitted that PW1 have never seen the accused personally. Accused had filed a reply to above stated notice dated 24.12.2013. The said reply along with certain documents was filed by the accused on 09.01.2014.
4. PW2/Dr. Adil Ameer has deposed that PW2 is residing at above mentioned address. PW2 is doctor by profession and PW2 was member of Bhartiya Chiktsa Parishad in year 2013. FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 3 OF PAGE 14 On 01.07.2013, PW2 was the part of the raiding team and went to E-206/1, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi and various other places also. Where they found accused Mohd. Zakir Rashid practicing as allopathic medical practitioner without registration. Thereafter, they got prepared Form A by the accused Ex.PW 2/A. Accused also showed his MBBS Degree from Bangladesh and other documents which is Mark X(Colly). PW2 also called him to explain on 08.07.2013. Accused came to our office at Preet Vihar, along with his documents i.e. Mark X(Colly). He also produced a letter showing that he had submitted all the documents for registration DMC Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, since accused was practicing allopathi without proper registration, they referred the matter to Delhi Medical Council for further action. PW2 inspection report on the basis of inspection dated 01.07.2013, Ex.PW2/C bearing signatures of PW2 at point A, which was submitted to Anti Quackery Chairman. PW2 has correctly identified the accused. PW2 was cross-examined by Counsel for the accused wherein PW2 admitted that doctors having degree of MBBS do not come under the purview of Bhartiya Chiktsa Parishad. Raiding team had 3-4 members. However, PW2 do not remember the exact numbers or their names due to lapse of time. PW2 statement was never recorded by the IO in the present matter. After submission of PW2 report to Chairman, Anti Quackery Cell, Bhartiya Chiksha Parisad the same has been sent to Delhi Medical Council, PW2 statement was never ever recorded in FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 4 OF PAGE 14 the office of Delhi Medical Council regarding the report submitted by PW2. Being an old case, PW2 cannot remember whether document submitted by accused in the year 2005 having registration application and the receipt submitted with the DMC were shown to PW2. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW2 along with his team ever visited the premises where accused was practicing. PW2 denied the suggestion that wife of accused namely Dr. Hena Fauzia is practicing from the said premises of accused. (Vol. On the day of inspection she was not present there). PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused was not found on the day of inspection at the address mentioned in the inspection report. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW2 was not the part of inspection team. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW2 is deposing falsely.
5. PW3/SI Brahm Prakash deposed that on 26.11.2014, PW3 was posted as SI at PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. On that day PW3 received complaint Ex.PW1/A after its endorsement from Inspt. Anand and investigation was marked to PW3. Thereafter, PW3 searched for shop of the accused situated at E- 206/1, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi but it was found closed. PW3 could not gather any information about owner of the said shop and whereabouts of the accused. Thereafter, PW3 was transferred and further investigation was marked to some other officer. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 5 OF PAGE 14 Counsel for accused wherein PW3 stated that remained IO of the present case for around 10-11 months. PW3 admitted that PW3 has stated that shop in question was of the accused on the basis of averments made in the complaint. PW3 admitted that PW3 have not collected any document to prove ownership of the said shop. PW3 denied the suggestion that particular shop does not belong to accused. PW3 denied the suggestion that PW3 is deposing falsely.
6. PW4/Mohd. Aslam deposed that accused used to run a shop at E-206/1, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. Accused was practicing as Medical Practitioner on the above said shop from year 2012 to 2014. Thereafter, he left his clinic. Police recorded PW4 statement during investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW4 has correctly identified the accused. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein PW4 stated that PW4 have been residing above said area since around 1990. PW4 is engaged in the business of property dealing and construction. PW4 do not know as to who is the owner of shop bearing no. E-206/1. IO recorded PW4 statement in Shaheen Bagh at the police booth. PW4 do not remember the date on which the said statement was recorded. PW4 do not know whether the shop in question was taken on rent in the year 2014 by Dr. Hina Fauzia. Police recorded PW4 statement only once during investigation. PW4 denied all the suggestion put him.
7. PW5/ SI Mool Chand deposed that on 13.04.2016, PW5 FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 6 OF PAGE 14 was posted as SI at PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. On that day, the case file of the present case marked to PW5 for further investigation. During investigation PW5 searched for the accused however, PW5 could not find him at that time. PW5 had also recorded statement of one witness namely Mohd. Aslam. Thereafter, PW5 was transferred to another PS and PW5 handed over the case file to MHC(R). PW5 was cross- examined by Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused and PW5 denied all the suggestion put to him.
8. PW6/SI Rishi Sharma deposed that on 09.12.2017, PW6 was posted as SI at PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to PW6. PW6 perused the file and came to know that accused has not been traced. Thereafter, PW6 issued notice to medical council / complainant namely Girish which is now Ex.PW6/A bearing signatures of PW6 at point A. PW6 obtained the reply to the said notice PW6 received documents wherein address of the accused was mentioned. PW6 went to the house of the accused which was situated at Jogabai Extension. PW6 do not remember the exact house number. PW6 interrogated the accused and asked the accused to show his certificate. PW6 served notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused which is now Ex.PW 6/B bearing signatures of PW6 at point A. PW6 recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared and filed the charge-sheet. PW6 has correctly identified the accused. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 7 OF PAGE 14 accused wherein PW6 stated that PW6 was handed over the investigation later on through MHC(R). Hence, PW6 do not know date on which complaint was given by the complainant at the PS. PW6 had not called the complainant to identify the accused. PW6 received reply from complainant Girish on 29.01.2018. (Vol. Said reply was received by him through Reader as it was sent through post). PW6 admitted that PW6 never called complainant to the PS. PW6 admitted that PW6 had not recorded any statement of complainant. PW6 denied the suggestion that PW6 had never visited the place of incident/ clinic of accused. His clinic was situated at E Block, Shaheen Bagh. PW6 do not remember the exact number. PW6 denied the suggestion that PW6 do not remember the exact number as PW6 never visited the said clinic. 1St IO of this case was SI Bhram Prakash. PW6 had not recorded statement of any witness during investigation. PW6 denied all the suggestion put to him.
9. PW7/ Naresh Kumar, deposed that PW7 has come on behalf of DBCP to depose before the court. The documents/report pertaining to the raid conducted at Zakir Clinic has already been sent to Registrar, Delhi Medical Counsel, New Delhi vide letter dated 22.10.2013 Ex.PW1/B (Colly). The report was prepared by Dr. Adil Amir on behalf of DBCP Ex.PW2/C. PW7 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused where PW7 deposed that he is working as peon in DBCP since 1998. PW7 has not brought any authority letter FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 8 OF PAGE 14 from his office to depose before the court. PW7 was not authorized to keep custody of the documents placed here in the court file. PW7 have no written authority to upkeep the documents in the DBCP. Vol. The DBCP has been dissolved at present and PW7 is the only person to maintain the record on ground level. Dr. Raghuram is the person incharge under whose direction, PW7 have come to depose before the court. PW7 had not visited Zakir clinic with the raiding team. PW7 denied the suggestion that PW7 is deposing falsely.
10. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied the entire incriminating evidence put to him. He further stated that his wife is practitioner doctor under BUMS degree. The address where the offence is shown to be committed at the name of wife of accused and there she is also practicing. All the notices given to accused are of his residence as he do not have any certificate to practice and place / office to practice. The case is filed against him as there is his name mentioned on the prescription slip of his wife but he does not practice neither anyone has seen him practice. The name is just given to fetch some client-age against against good will of accused and just for name sake. Accused chose not to lead DE.
11. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel for accused and considered the respective arguments as well as gone through case file very carefully.
12. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that case of the prosecution has been fully proved as all the evidences are in FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 9 OF PAGE 14 line with the prosecution story. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
13. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the allegation that the accused Md. Zakir Rashid have been falsely assuming to be a medical practitioner and having been practicing allopathic system of medicine without possessing requisite medical qualifications as per section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 and ingredients are as under:
1. person falsely assumes that he is a medical practitioner
2. and practices the modern scientific system of medicine,
3. person should not fall under definition of medical practitioner/ practitioner as defined in clause 7 of section 2 of DMC Act i.e. a person who Is engaged in the practice of modern scientific system of medicine and all its branches and has qualifications as prescribed.
14. Now as per the facts in hand, firstly undersigned will discuss 3rd ingredient i.e. whether accused is a valid medical practitioner. After going through the evidences, undersigned is of view that accused does not fall under the definition of medical practitioner as accused was not granted licence to practice by the authority and as per the documents submitted by the accused, he has completed his medical education from Bangladesh in 1998 which is not valid in India. Moreover, documents were submitted to Medical Council by the accused FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 10 OF PAGE 14 on 08.07.2013 Ex.PW2/B. But the date of offence is shown to be 01.07.2013 which is prior to submission of the registration documents for practice allopathy in India and hence accused do not fall under the definition of medical practitioner as prescribed in DMC Act.
15. For the 1st ingredient we have to find whether accused falsely assumed that he is a medical practitioner. From the perusal of the facts that undersigned found that PW1 issued a closure order dated 07.02.2014 to accused to stop practicing allopathy and accused close his clinic and as per the version of PW4, accused used to practice as medical practitioner from 2012 to 2014. PW2 also deposed that they found accused practicing as medical practitioner without any registration. Moreover, PW3 also corroborated all the above 3 PWs on the point that on 26.11.2014 he searched for the shop which was found closed and accused himself has stated that his wife was a practicing doctor at the given address where as per prosecution he was found practicing and his name was mentioned on prescription slip of his wife and his name was given to fetch some client-age against his good will. But here all the facts shows that accused was falsely assuming that he was a medical practitioner and that is why his name was mentioned on the prescription slip of her wife and if he was not practicing there then reason to close the place could not be brought to the notice of the court. Wife of the accused has not challenged the said order of the authorities to close the clinic. Moreover, when FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 11 OF PAGE 14 accused did not provide any reason for his good will. A person earns good will from his work and the statement of the accused that his name was on the slip to fetch some clientage due to good will shows that he was doing the act with full knowledge that he is not allowed to practice in India and this representation to public is false. Ex.PW2/B are the certified copies place on judicial file.
16. In addition to above, accused could not explain the reason that after completing his MBBS in 1998 why he waited to get himself registered till 2013. Accused could not prove what work he does for living except to practice as medical practitioner. Moreover, accused appeared before the Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parisad and deposed his statement and also provided them with some document but on show cause notice issued by Delhi Medical Council accused neither appeared before them nor challenged their order and accused did not stated to appropriate authority / reason for inclusion of his name in FIR and neither accused shown any bonafidiness nor shown any reason by which any benefit can be given to accused. PW2 have found accused practicing allopathy during the raid and accused could not prove that he was only present at the clinic of her wife and was not doing anything. Even the PW2 has deposed that her wife was not present at the clinic. Plea of alibi is also not taken or proved by the accused and hence 1st ingredient is also fulfilled that accused falsely assumes himself as medical practitioner and was present at the FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 12 OF PAGE 14 place of raid.
17. For the 2nd and last ingredient i.e. practices the modern scientific system of medicine, it is found that PW2 has deposed that accused was practicing allopathy and PW4 has also deposed accused was practicing and the quackery form shows that accused was practicing as allopathy. PW6 also deposed that he served notice u/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C. upon the accused. Medical document of the accused also show that he wants to practice allopathy being MBBS Graduate from Bangladesh. Moreover, the certificate as medical practitioner obtained by accused from Bangladesh is dated 23.06.1999 and 28.02.2005 and accused did not produce any other document to show his sincere efforts to enroll in India or he has given his documents for registration much prior to date of raid. Further more accused did not show that what he was doing for the last 10 years with these degrees and where he was practicing and the name of the accused as mentioned in prescription slip shows that accused was duping people by quackerying and endanger lives of people in NCT of Delhi.
18. The argument of the accused that Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parisad cannot raid him and only the Delhi Medical Council was authorized to raid him is not sustainable in eye of law as accused was involved in quackerying and any agency can catch the wrong doers in the society and Delhi Medical Council is only the Action Taken Authority. In NCT of Delhi Anti- Quackery Cell in alliance with DMC and DBCP and Police FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 13 OF PAGE 14 conduct survey / surveillance of the clinics and any clinic found to be run by fake doctor is being inspected and action being taken there against. Accused could not bring any contradiction in testimonies of PWs.
19. It is pertinent to mention that fake doctor is menace to society. The harm Quack or fake doctors cause in the society cannot be overemphasized. Many have died and some are left with an ailment they will have to treat for the rest of their lives as a result of an encounter with a quack doctor. Quackery gives birth to nothing and gives death to everything.
20. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Md. Zakir Rashid is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
SNEHIL Digitally signed by SNEHIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.01.21 16:27:46 +0530 Announced in the open court (Snehil Sharma) on 21.01.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate-08, South East, Saket, New Delhi.
FIR No. PS Jamia Nagar PAGE 14 OF PAGE 14