Delhi District Court
State vs Mahabul Hussain on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA, LD. JMFC-06
(NDD), PHC-NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mahabul Hussain
FIR No.: 262/12
P.S.: Sagarpur
U/s: 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997
CNR No. DLND02- 002613-2013
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of case & Date of institution 50170/2016 - 27.06.2013 Date of commission of offence 04.10.2012 Name of the complainant Dr. Girish Tyagi (Secretary) Name of the accused Mahabul Hussain Nature of offence complained of U/S 27 DMC Act, 1997 Plea of the accused person Pleaded not guilty Final Order Acquittal Date of order 09.07.2025 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE: -
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act of 1997 on the allegations that on 04.10.2012 at an unknown time at C-65, Gali no. 12, Sagarpur, New Delhi, the accused was found practicing allopathic system of medicine i.e. Modern Scientific System of Medicine (allopathic) without possessing any requisite medical qualification, in the consequence of which FIR bearing no.262/12 was registered on the complaint of complainant.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 27.06.2013 and copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge for offence punishable under Section 27 Delhi Medical Council Act was framed upon the accused on 16.01.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence Digitally signed against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: - by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Date:
MONGA 2025.07.09
State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.1 of 6 FIR No.262/1216:12:27
+0530
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Dr. Girish Tyagi
PW-2 Dr. P.K. Behra
PW-3 Sh. Kuldeep Sharma
PW-4 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma
PW-5 Sh. Nishikant Kumar
PW-6 HC Jitender
PW-7 HC Narender
PW-8 HC Dharam Raj
PW-9 Dr. B.K. Swarankar
PW-10 SI Kehri Singh
PW-11 SI Krishan Kumar
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW 1/A Inspection Report
Ex. PW1/B Certified copy of show cause notice
Ex. PW1/C Order issued by Dr. Anil Bansal (Dated:
12.06.2012)
Ex. PW1/D Copy of Order sent to various authorities
Ex. PW 1/E Complaint to register FIR (Dated: 19.06.2012)
Ex. PW 1/F Requisite/Miscellaneous documents
Ex. PW 2/A Seizure Memo
Ex. PW 2/B Arrest Memo
Ex. PW 7/A Personal Search Memo
Ex. PW 11/A Endorsement
Ex. PW 11/B Documents from DMC (seizure memo)
Ex. PW 11/C Disclosure statement of Accused
4. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was seized from his clinic nor Digitally signed SAHIL by SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date: 2025.07.09 16:12:32 +0530 State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.2 of 6 FIR No.262/12 recovered. He further stated that he did not lead DE.
5. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
7. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients required to prove offence punishable u/s 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 are:
Any person who falsely assumes that he is a medical practitioner or practitioners defined u/s 2(7) of the said Act.
As well as practices the modern scientific system of medicine.
8. Now it is to be examined if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for offence punishable under section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 which is a cognizable and a non-bailable offence.
9. The allegation against the accused in the present case is that the accused was found to be practicing allopathic system of medicine without possessing requisite medical qualification on the part of the accused.
10. In the facts of the present case, on 03.10.2011, the accused without possessing requisite medical qualification on modern scientific system of medicine was found by the members of Anti-Quackery Week Drive under the supervision of Delhi Medical Council (DMC) and Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, that the accused was practicing Allopathic system of medicine in his clinic namely "Hussain Clinic" which is primarily for Unani Medicine (Conventional/Traditional method). PW1 in his statement stated that after receiving inspection report (EX. PW1/A), the accused was Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.3 of 6 FIR No.262/12 MONGA Date:
2025.07.09 16:12:46 +0530 served a show cause notice dated 09.04.2012 (EX. PW1/B) by him as the Secretary of DMC to appear before the committee on 19.04.2012 and to stop practicing Allopathic system of medicine as well but the accused neither appeared nor replied to the said notice. Thereafter, a closure order dated 12.06.2012 (EX. PW1/C) was issued by the Chairman of Anti-Quackery Committee, DMC against the accused. Furthermore, a complaint dated 19.06.2012 was sent to SHO of Sagarpur Police Station by Secretary of DMC (EX. PW1/E) to register the FIR against accused in violation of the said provision.
On 04.01.2013, members of Anti-Quackery Cell raided the clinic of accused and he was found practicing Allopathic system of medicine. Hereby, the accused was arrested (EX. PW2/B) and medicines (allopathic medicines) were seized (EX. PW2/A) from the clinic of accused.
The prosecution has brought in total of 11 witnesses before the court to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt.
11. In the present case, the defense has put forward a plausible argument that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case as the accused is officially enrolled under the State Council of Unani Medicine, West Bengal, Calcutta since the year of 1985. The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there is no substantial or concrete evidence showing that the accused was practicing the Allopathic system of medicine on record. Furthermore, argued that there is no official documentary evidence put up on judicial record which authorizes the raid by the Delhi Medical Council. As per the PW4 the directions were not given by the department but by the Nodal Officer/PW2. Even at the time of unauthorized raid, no prescription prescribed by the accused of Allopathy medicine was found from the said clinic. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that during the time of the raid or even before it, not a single statement of any patient was recorded by the members of Anti quackery team stating that the accused was practicing Allopathic system of medicine even when some Digitally signed by patients were present at the spot. SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
2025.07.09 16:12:50 +0530 State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.4 of 6 FIR No.262/12
12. PW7 and PW8 have testified that the raid was conducted in the presence of Investigating Officer though on the other hand, PW2 in his cross examination testifies that the raid was conducted by raiding team without the assistance of police. He further testified that the Anti quackery team raided the clinic of accused on 04.01.2013 without any police assistance and as well as seized/sealed the medicines in a gunny bag which was later handed over to the Police along with the custody of accused. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR was duly registered bearing no. 262/12 on 04.10.2012 but still the members of Anti quackery team conducted raid without any official authorization that too without the assistance of Investigating Officer in the said case. It remained unexplained by the prosecution that as to how was the so called raiding team authorized to conduct a raid after the registration of FIR and to seize the medicines, and take the accused to police station and hand him over and medicines to the IO.
13. It is notably seen that the photographic evidences Mark X1 to X3 produced by the Prosecution i.e. clinic of the accused as well as of him practicing as the Allopathy Doctor is not suggestive of the fact that the accused is prescribing or practicing Allopathic system of medicine. The original photographs have not been placed on record by prosecution and the photocopies placed on record are not satisfactory to the extent of assuming that accused was practicing allopathy. Furthermore, the defence of accused that he was practicing in Unani medicines can also not be ignored.
14. It is worth observing that no other public person was made to join the raid or was present apart from members of Anti quackery team or Police officials. The present case, doesn't involve any independent witness who testifies that the accused was practicing the Allopathic system of medicine or that the seized allopathic medicines were found from the clinic of accused and hence, not planted. The absence of independent witness in the present case as well as contradictory testimonies made by the witnesses uncovers the huge shadow of doubt in the case of prosecution. The seizure of medicines, which is a crucial piece of evidence in establishing the Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA MONGA Date:
State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.5 of 6 FIR No.262/12 2025.07.09 16:12:54 +0530 accused's involvement, was not conducted in the presence of any public witnesses. This absence raises significant doubts about the legitimacy and transparency of the recovery process. The law mandates that recoveries, should ideally be made in the presence of independent witnesses to avoid any potential manipulation or coercion by the police. In this case, since there were no public witnesses to corroborate the account of the recovery, the prosecution's claim loses its credibility. The absence of independent verification makes it difficult to ascertain the authenticity of the recovery of medicines and raises questions about whether alleged medicines were indeed found from the clinic of accused. The importance of public witnesses during recovery is emphasized in several legal precedents. In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, the Supreme Court underscored that the presence of independent witnesses during the recovery process is crucial to establish the legitimacy of the police's actions. The court highlighted that without such witnesses, the evidence could be viewed with suspicion.
15. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was found to be practicing allopathic system of medicine without possessing requisite medical qualification on the part of the accused. The contradicting testimonies of the witnesses and the lack of conclusive evidences create a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution , the benefit of which has to be given to the accused.
16. The defense has presented a reasonable explanation for the accusation, and the evidences do not support the charge of section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act. Consequently, the accused, Mahabul Hussain, is acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act.
Announced in the open Court Digitally
signed by
On 09.07.2025 SAHIL
SAHIL MONGA
MONGA
(Sahil Monga)Date:
2025.07.09
JMFC-06/PHC/NDD/09.07.2025
16:12:57
+0530
State Vs. Mahabul Hussain Page No.6 of 6 FIR No.262/12