Delhi District Court
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad vs Ishwar Singh on 17 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CR No.44/2013
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad,
C.S.C.III, D.D.A. Market, BBlock,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092.
Through its Registrar, Sh. Y.D. Sharma,
.....Petitioner/Complainant.
Versus
1. Ishwar Singh, S/o Sh. Gopi Chand,
R/o V147, Gali No.6,
Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi - 110053.
Clinic address:
Vishal Clinic,
D84, Main 20 Foota Road, Nanak Dairy
Anku Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi94.
2. The GNCT of Delhi. .....Respondents.
Date of filing of revision. : 08.11.2014.
Date of arguments. : 15.05.2014.
Date of judgment. : 17.05.2014.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by Ld. ACMM(NE):KKD/Delhi in a complaint case bearing CC No. 90/10/12 U/s 190 Cr.P.C and also U/s 31 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998, whereby Ld. Trial Court while Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 1 of pages 6 observing that complainant has no material on record to charge the accused/respondent no.1 herein for the alleged offence for which he is being prosecuted, dismissed the complaint of revisionist/complainant and accordingly discharged the accused Ishwar Singh from the case, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 08.11.2013 for setting aside the impugned order.
2. Notice of the petition was accepted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on behalf of respondent no.2. Notice of the petition was also issued to the respondent no.1 and he put his appearance before the court through his counsel.
3. In the instant matter on receipt of case on assignment on 31.08.2010, Ld. Trial Court on finding prima facie sufficient material on record for summoning the accused U/s 30 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad ACt, summoned the accused for 25.11.2010 and accordingly accused put his appearance before the court and also furnished the bail bond and thereafter, the case was fixed for leading of precharge evidence by the complainant. In its precharge evidence complainant/revisionist herein examined as many as three witnesses i.e. CW1 Dr. Gousia Banu, CW2 Sh. Nafiz Ahmed and CW3 Dr. Farhat Umar. Then after hearing arguments of both the sides, vide its order dated 06.08.2013 Ld. Trial Court discharged the accused/respondent no.1 from the case and dismissed the complaint of complainant, which is being assailed by the complainant on various grounds as mentioned in the instant petition.
4. I have heard both the parties in details. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, record summoned from the Trial Court, contents of the revision petition specially the grounds taken therein.
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 2 of pages 6
5. According to Ld. Counsel for revisionist/complainant, revisionist received a complaint against the accused alongwith other persons that he was practicing in Ayurvedic without registration and Dr. Nafiz, Incharge of North East District, Delhi inspected the clinic of accused and found him practicing in Ayurvedic without having requisite qualification and recognition by the complainant. Even in the proformaA Ex.CW1/11 filled in the hand of respondent no.1/accused, he himself admitted/ confessed that he prescribes and gives Ayurvedic type of medicines to his patients. Accused/respondent no.1 has not brought on record any material to show and prove that the word Ayurveda was got filled in form by the accused forcibly. Ld. Trial Court has given totally a different explanation for mentioning the word Ayurveda in the proforma Ex.CW1/11, which is totally contrary to the defence as taken by accused/respondent no.1. Further the admission of the accused for prescribing and giving Ayurvedic type of medicines to his patients is sufficient to prove the commission of an offence on the part of accused as envisaged U/s 30 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998. Further a medical practitioner knows his limitation very specifically while practicing medicines and he is not a common man as mentioned in the impugned order. The accused while relying upon the document Ex.CW2/A2 knows very well that he is not entitled to practice in Ayurvedic medicines, this being recognized system for which registration with the state council/ board is mandatory.
Per contra, according to Ld. Counsel for accused/ respondent the revision petition as filed is devoid of merits as it has been failed to point out any illegality or patent error in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court and as such the instant revision is liable for dismissal.
6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 3 of pages 6 submissions of both the sides and perusing the entire material placed before me, I am of the considered opinion that there is substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused/ respondent. The impugned order is a well reasoned order, considering all the material facts of the case and I find myself in complete agreement with the findings recorded by Ld. Trial Court and they do not require any interference in it. The complainant has not collected or prove any evidence on record to prove that the accused was found doing practice in Ayurveda medicines at the time or otherwise, rather, the case of the complainant is based on a document Ex.CW1/11 in which accused has disclosed his field of practice as electropathy (Ayurveda), which is a separate system of medication and the same has been recognized by various courts as well as Government of Delhi. Except Ex.CW1/11, there is no material on record to connect the accused with the offence alleged. In his deposition CW2 has conceded that he was not aware about the disclosure or non disclosure by the accused during the raid that he was authorized to practice in electropathy. Further admittedly during the raid neither any sample of medicine was collected nor any patient was made witness to show that the accused was actually practicing in Ayurveda or he was violating any guideline of complainant. Similarly, CW3 has also admitted that the complainant has not placed on record the compliant dated 23.06.2010 made against the accused. He has admitted that this complaint has been filed on the basis of proforma Ex.CW1/11 and no material or equipment has been placed on record to show that the accused was violating the rules of the complainant. The complainant has merely emphasized on proforma Ex.CW1/11 in which accused has allegedly admitted his field of practice and in view of the explanation given in document Ex.CW2/A1 i.e. "electropathy practice is stated to be Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 4 of pages 6 a medicine system based on herbal and its medicines are prepared from medicinal plants with the help of distilled water. Its medicines are therefore 100% safe and curative", it has been rightly observed by Ld. Trial Court that the said explanation given in the documents makes it clear that field of electropathy is like an Ayurveda medicine field based on herbal medicine and a common man may be confused with it as Ayurveda and it is quite possible that the accused might have filled up the word "Ayurveda" in ( ) after electropathy in proforma Ex.CW1/11 and the same have not been done with any malafide intention. Further the educational certificate of the accused alongwith documents Ex.CW2/A1 and Ex.CW2/A2 and mentioning of field of medicine as electropathy in Ex.CW1/11 clearly proved that accused was only practicing electropathy and not in Ayurveda. Thus there is no sufficient material available on record to proceed further in the case against the accused after framing of charge. The instant revision petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Same stands dismissed accordingly.
7. TCR alongwith the copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
8. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open
court on 17.05.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:(NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURT:DELHI
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 5 of pages 6
CR No.44/2013
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr.
17.05.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for revisionist.
Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Vide a separate judgment, revision petition of the revisionist stands disposed off.
TCR alongwith the copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ02 (NE)/KKD/DELHI 17.05.2014 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr. (CR No.44/2013) Page No. 6 of pages 6