Delhi District Court
State vs . : Tapan Kumar Biswas on 20 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 377/16
U/s : 27 Delhi Medical Council Act and 419 IPC
PS : Sunlight Colony
State Vs. : Tapan Kumar Biswas
a The Sl. No. of the case : 5731/17
b The date of commission : 29.06.2015
c The date of Institution of the case : 12.12.2017
d The name of complainant : Dr. Girish Tyagi
e The name of accused : Tapan Kumar Biswas
S/o Sambu Nath
R/o h. no. 492,
Sunlight Colony 2nd
New Delhi
f The offence complained of : 27 DMC Act
g Charges framed under sections : 27 DMC Act and 419 IPC
h The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
i Arguments heard on : 01.02.2020
j The final order : Acquitted
k The date of judgment : 20.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Tapan Kumar Biswas has been sent for trial on the allegations that a raid was conducted at T. K. Visvass / Kamna Clinic A - 24, Sunlight Colony - 24 New Delhi - 14 on 29.06.2015 at an unknown time and the accused was found giving treatment of Allopathic Medicine to a patient. As per the prosecution's case, accused was not qualified as medical petitioner for the same. It is also alleged against the said accused that he was found FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 1 of 19 impersonating to the patient as a qualified medical practitioner and thus cheated the said patient / person. Thus, as per the prosecution, said accused has committed offences made punishable u/s. 27 Delhi Medical Council Act and 419 IPC.
2. The IO, after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet in this matter.
3. Initially, the chargesheet was filed for offence made punishable u/s. 27 Delhi Medical Council Act only and later section 419 IPC was added. Thereafter, charge for aforesaid offences was framed upon the accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:
Sr. Witness Nature of deposition / documents produced / proved No. Description i. PW1 This witness is the complainant in this case. Initially, he had Dr. Girish Tyagi filed a complaint u/s. 200 CrPC against the accused in his capacity as Secretary, DMC alongwith an application u/s. 156(3) CrPC. The said application was allowed by the predecessor of this court vide order dated 16.08.2016 and thus, the present FIR was registered against the accused.
This witness claimed that on 06.05.2015, he was posted as Secretary, Delhi Medical Council and had received an inspection report from CDMO, South East regarding practice of allopathic medicine by some individuals without being qualified including qua the accused herein. He further deposed that on 17.06.2015 he issued show cause notice to accused to stop practicing allopathy.
Thereafter, he further deposed that on 29.06.2015 accused appeared before them and he submitted his written statement alongwith filled proforma.FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 2 of 19
ii. PW2 This witness was posted at District dispensary, GNCT of Dr. Priyanka Delhi. She deposed that she received instructions from CDMO to conduct an inspection at Sunlight Colony - II, Delhi. She further deposed that she was accompanied with Mr. Abhay (dealing assistant at anti quackery cell) and went at aforesaid address. Thereafter, she met with accused herein and recorded his reply. Thereafter, she sent the same to CDMO office.
She had correctly identified the accused herein who was present in the court.
iii. PW3 This witness was posted as Addl. CDMO at South East Dr. Inderjeet District, Saket PVR dispensary. She deposed that she had Kaur received an order from Directorate of health services regarding complaint against the accused from a resident of Siddharth Basti Hari Nagar Ashram, Sunlight Colony, Delhi. She further deposed that she directed PW2 to conduct inspection at clinic of accused at Siddharth Basti Hari Nagar Ashram, Sunlight Colony, Delhi however, she did not join the same. Thereafter, Dr. Priyanka Tiwari and Abhay Sethi conducted the inspection and submitted their report.
iv. PW4 He is the IO of the case who carried out investigation in this
ASI Dheeraj case.
Kumar
Prosecution also relied upon following documents details of which are as under:
Sl. no. Description of document(s) Exhibit(s) number given 1 05 pages of photocopy of photographs Mark X (colly.) 2 List of medicines Ex.PW1/B (OSR) 3 One Filled proforma Ex.PW1/C (OSR) 4 Show cause notice Ex.PW1/D (OSR) 5 Written reply Ex.PW1/E (OSR) 6 Filled up proforma Ex.PW1/F (OSR) 7 Copy of your DL Mark X1 8 Order regarding closing down the clinic Ex.PW1/G (OSR) FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 3 of 19 9 Complaint to SHO, PS Sunlight Colony for Ex.PW1/H (OSR) filing of FIR 10 Report from CDMO Ex.PW1/I (OSR) 11 Complaint u/s. 200 CrPC Ex.PW1/J (OSR) (running into 07 pages) 12 Certified copies of report of inspection dated Ex.PW3/A 21.04.2015 13 Certified copies of 06 photographs Ex.PW3/B 14 Statement of PW3 recorded u/s. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DX 15 Certified copy of order for registration of FIR Ex.PW4/A 16 Copy of notice u/s. 91 CrPC Ex.PW4/B 17 Letter dated 27.04.2015 Ex.PW4/C 18 Notice to show cause dated 17.06.2015 Ex.PW4/D 19 Letter written by accused to the Registrar Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F DMC 20 Order dated 27.07.2015 Ex.PW4/G 21 Letter dated 06.08.2015 Ex.PW4/H 22 Report of inspection Ex.PW4/I 23 Notice u/s. 41(A) CrPC dated 28.08.2017 Ex.PW4/J 24 Site plan Ex.PW4/K 25 FIR (without contents) (document admitted Ex.PA1 by accused)
5. All the aforesaid witnesses were duly examined on behalf of the State and crossexamined [by the Ld. APP for State, where necessary and also by the counsel for the accused person(s)].
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated that he been falsely implicated in the present case. He claimed that he was running the aforesaid clinic at the aforesaid address on the aforesaid date but he was practicing ayurvedic medicine as he hold a degree of BIAMS from Calcutta which is Bachelor FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 4 of 19 Indo Ayurvedic Medical System. He further claimed that he did not prescribe allopathic medicine but was holding the said clinic. Thus, as per the accused, he was qualified ayurvedic practitioner and has been wrongly implicated in this case. It is further claimed by the accused that somebody had inspected his premises from DMC on 21.04.2015 but at that time, he was only sitting in his clinic and was not treating any patient. He further claimed that if somebody comes to his clinic, he write medicine and give dressings to the patients. He further claimed that rest of the allegations made against him about practicing allopathic medicines and the medicines which were recovered from his dispensary were given to him by the Medical Representatives who come to him clinic. He further claimed that he did not prescribe the medicines to patients and thus it is a false case.
7. Thereafter, he availed the opportunity to lead defence evidence and has produced one Arvind Das before this court who stepped in the witness box as DW1. As per the evidence of said witness, accused was running a general store in the area of East of Kailash / Lajpat Nagar about 05 years back.
8. Thereafter, said DW1 was duly crossexamined by the ld. APP for State. No other defence evidence was led by the accused and his defence evidence stood closed. Hence matter reached the stage of final arguments.
9. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 5 of 1910. Now, as per the prosecution story, accused had impersonated himself as an allopathic medical practitioner and had prescribed various medicines to different patients. Under section 10(h) of the Delhi Medical Council Act, the Delhi Medical Council is mandated to ensure that no unqualified person practices modern scientific system of medicine in Delhi and therefore, it is the sole authority in Delhi which is mandated to give a complaint in writing (through an officer empowered by the Rules framed under the Delhi Medical Council Act) for prosecution of such an unqualified person u/s. 27 of the said Act.
11. Now, in the present case, a complaint u/s. 200 CrPC was filed before the predecessor of this court alongwith an application u/s. 156(3) CrPC against the accused. Vide order dated 16.08.2016, the ld. predecessor of this court had ordered registration of FIR against the accused which eventually led to the present chargesheet.
12. Now, as per record, one Dr. Priyanka Kumari / PW2 had conducted an inspection at the premises of accused on 21.04.2015. She thereafter forwarded her report to the Delhi Medical Council based on which accused was given a hearing before the Delhi Medical Council and eventually was ordered to shut down his practice. Dr. Priyanka Kumari / PW2 was accompanied with another person (one Mr. Abhay) for the said inspection. As per record, Dr. Priyanka Kumari had caused the accused to fill out one proforma (Ex.PW1/C; Ex.PW3/A) and had also prepared a list of medicines found at the clinic of the accused during the inspection. She had also clicked certain photographs of the medicines found at the clinic and also of FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 6 of 19 the patients found at the time of the inspection [see Ex.PW3/B (colly.)]. The said report of Dr. Priyanka Kumari and the photographs clicked by her is the material evidence which forms the basis of the prosecution of the accused before this court.
13. It may be noted that neither PW1 / Dr. Girish Tyagi; PW3 / Dr. Inderjeet Kaur or the IO / ASI Dhiraj Kumar / PW4 were witnesses or part of the raid which was conducted at the clinic of the accused on 21.04.2015. In other words, the case of the prosecution is completely dependent on the testimony of PW2 / Priyanka Kumari to show that the accused was actually practicing as an allopathic medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Delhi Medical Council Act without having any qualifications prescribed for such practice (within the meaning of Schedule First, Second or Third of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956).
14. Now, as far as section 419 IPC is concerned, accused is alleged to have impersonated himself as an allopathic medical practitioner. But, before the said offence can be taken to have been completed, prosecution was required to produce atleast one victim / patient who could have stated that he / she was cheated by the accused. Before offence u/s. 419 IPC can be completed, offence of cheating is required to be completed. U/s. 415 IPC some person is required to be deceived or fraudulently or dishonestly induced by the accused to do or omit to do something and such act or omission should result in some damage or harm to the victim. In the present case, no victim whatsoever has been produced before this court who could have deposed about fact of deception or fraud or dishonest inducement done by the FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 7 of 19 accused. There is no victim before this court who has alleged some damage or harm to his body, mind, reputation or property because of the alleged deception, fraud or dishonest inducement given by the accused. In other words, the basic ingredients of section 419 IPC are not complete as there is no evidence qua the same before this court. In such circumstances, accused is acquitted for offence made punishable u/s. 419 IPC.
15. Now, coming to the allegations qua section 27 DMC Act against the accused, as per record, PW2 had filled a proforma Ex.PW1/C; Ex.PW3/A when she visited the clinic of the accused. The said proforma only bears the signatures of Dr. Priyanka Kumari (which was subsequently attested by PW3 / Dr. Inderjeet Kaur and this witness was not party to the inspection done by PW2) and claims that accused was found practicing allopathic medicine at the time of visit by the said witness. She had taken certain photographs of the accused, medicines and one patient at the time of her inspection and had annexed the same with her report to the DMC [see Ex.PW3/B (colly.)].
16. Now, before the said report and photographs can be read in evidence, it was necessary that the original report as well as the photographs should have been produced before this court. Only if the original report / photographs were produced before this court, could the same be treated as primary evidence and then, the same would have been admissible in evidence. Neither the original report nor the said original photographs were ever produced before this court to make the said documents admissible in evidence.
FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 8 of 1917. It can be argued that author of the inspection report i.e. Dr. Priyanka Kumari / PW2 had appeared before this court as a witness and she proved her report on record. Even if, the inspection report Ex.PW1/C / Ex.PW3/A are taken to be admissible in evidence, still the said report is only a report by a field functionary of DMC qua operation of a clinic at a given place. The said report is neither signed by the accused nor is it witnessed by any public persons or any other person whatsoever. The said report has been prepared by PW2 / Dr. Priyanka Kumari and that by itself cannot mean to be sufficient to show that the facts stated therein are true or correct. It appears that the said report is prepared by the visiting doctor on the basis of replies given by the person found at the concerned clinic / establishment. It is not clear as to whether the report in this case was filled out based on replies given by the accused or on the basis of replies given by some other person. The possibility that the said report was filled out at the office of the field functionary or was filled out without the knowledge of the accused cannot be ruled out as the said report is neither signed by the accused or witnessed by any public person or any public official whatsoever. As already noted, PW3 had only attested it at a subsequent time and she was not party to the preparation of said report. Infact, one Abhay Sethi is claimed to have accompanied PW2 for the inspection but, the report in question is not even signed by him. Abhay Sethi was never arrayed or produced as a witness before this court. In my opinion, such unilateral report by a field functionary of DMC cannot, by itself, mean that the said report is the last word on the facts contained therein. In my opinion, some other corroborative evidence shall be required to be led in evidence to show that the facts stated therein are correctly recorded therein and were not filled FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 9 of 19 in by the field functionaries of the DMC in a casual manner.
18. As already noted, certain photographs were annexed with the said report by PW2 and they could give some credence to the report of Dr. Priyanka Kumari / PW2 (qua the fact of her visit or the fact stated in the said report). But, surprisingly the said photographs have not been proved on record as per rules of evidence. Neither the said photographs were produced in original nor the reasons for the non production of the same stated before this court. Thus, neither the primary evidence (i.e. the original photographs) nor the secondary evidence (i.e. the photocopies of the said photographs being placed on record in compliance of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act) qua the said photographs is before this court. In my opinion, in the absence of the same, the photographs placed on record cannot be looked at as the same remain to be inadmissible in evidence.
19. This, leaves me with the oral testimony of PW2 / Dr. Priyanka Kumari about her visit to the clinic of the accused on 21.04.2015 wherein she claims to have visited the accused on the said date and fill out the proforma given to her. During her crossexamination, she claimed that when she visited the said clinic, she had found one lady patient at the clinic of the accused but, she did not record any statement of the said patient. Why?
20. She further claimed in her crossexamination that she had been sent to the clinic of the accused only to find out as to whether any clinic run by the accused or not and therefore, it was not necessary for her to record any statement of any person. It means, probably the visit of Dr. Priyanka was FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 10 of 19 only a preliminary visit. But, there appears to be no other visit made by the DMC officials to the clinic of the accused so as to show that the accused was in violation of section 27 of DMC Act.
21. Even the proforma given to PW2 Ex.PW1/C / Ex.PW3/A was not signed by the accused. It is not even clear as to whether accused told the facts recorded therein or not. There appears that no independent report was prepared by Dr. Priyanka qua her visit and except for filling out a proforma and clicking some photographs, she did nothing else. Dr. Priyanka was a qualified doctor and must have made an assessment of the clinic when she visited it. Atleast an independent report could have been made by her which could have thrown some light about the circumstances prevailing at the clinic to indicate as to whether the acused herein was actually practicing allopathic medicines or not. It appears that since the DMC has not come out with any particular procedure or training module in this regard, Dr. Priyanka did not prepare her independent report for DMC.
22. Again, as per record, Dr. Priyanka did not seize any medicines at the clinic. It may be noted that as per the crossexamination of Dr. Priyanka / PW2, she claimed that she neither seized the medicines found at the clinic of the accused nor obtained signatures of any public witness qua the list of medicines prepared by her.
23. Thus, what transpires from the testimony of PW2 / Dr. Priyanka Kumari is that she was sent to the clinic of the accused for some preliminary inquiry as she only got some photographs clicked (which were not proved before FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 11 of 19 this court) and filled out a proforma given to her. As already noted, it is not evident from her testimony as to whether the said proforma was filled at the instance of the accused or on the basis of her inquiry made generally from some other person. Even the medicines found at the spot were not seized nor any public made witness to the said proceedings.
24. It was argued by the ld. APP for state that Dr. Priyanka Kumari could not have seized the medicines found at the clinic of the accused as she did not have such powers under the DMC Act. He also argued that the said Act does not require any public witness be made party to the proceedings carried out by the raiding team and thus, it was not necessary for Dr. Priyanka Kumari for asking any public to be party to the proceedings to be carried out by her or to record statements of the said witnesses.
25. I have gone through the entire DMC Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There appears to be no prescribed procedure under the said Act / Rules framed by the legislature governing the manner in which a raid / inspection has to be conducted on a suspected clinic from where a given person is running an allopathic practice in violation of section 27 of DMC Act. Under section 10(h) of the said Act, one of the major duties of DMC is to ensure that no unqualified persons practice modern scientific system of medicines in Delhi. It is very surprising that neither any Rules nor any standard operating procedure has been framed by the DMC to govern raids / inspections for the benefit of their field staff so that due effect can be given to the duty cast on DMC u/s. 10(h) of the DMC Act. Atleast, no such standard operating procedure was brought to my notice in this regard.
FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 12 of 1926. But, only because no such standard operating procedure or practice or raids / inspections has been prescribed under the Act does not mean that the DMC shall not follow basic safeguards to prevent any false prosecution of individuals u/s. 27 DMC Act. Section 27 DMC Act prescribes a punishment of up to 03 years or fine up to Rs.20,000/ or both and thus, any person who is charged under the said section faces severe consequences. In such scenario, DMC is expected to follow certain procedural safeguards during their raids / inspections so as to give more credence to the proceedings carried out by them and serve the dual purpose of ensuring that relevant evidence against an impersonator is duly collected by them (so that such impersonator can be properly prosecuted) and at the same time, no innocent practitioner is harassed or made to face false criminal proceedings.
27. Such procedural safeguards may include constitution of a designated raiding party (with atleast 03 members); recording of statements of patients found at the spot / clinic; taking photographs of the visit and the said original photographs being sent to court for prosecution of accused (or in case copies are sent, atleast the fact that the original are available at a certain place or are accompanied with certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act so that the copies are admissible as secondary evidence); providing proper cameras / recorders of the proceedings carried out at the clinic and such video recordings being sent to court for trial; providing proper training to the field staff; seizing the allopathic medicines found at the time of raid / inspection; the inspection proforma being duly signed by all the members of the raiding party; joining of public witnesses to the proceedings taken out by the raiding party etc. This is only an indicative list FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 13 of 19 of safeguards which can be taken by the DMC so as to give credence to the proceedings taken out by them at a given clinic.
28. I am conscious of the fact that in this regard, possibly powers of search and seizure may be required by the raiding party and for the same, necessary amendments shall be required to be made in the DMC Act / Rules. Still, without the power of search and seizure, atleast DMC can frame certain rules / procedures (with the said powers already available with the DMC) which may allow the raiding party to take necessary safeguards for ensuring collection of relevant evidence against a given person which shall stand scrutiny of courts at the time of trial.
29. In the present case, save and except the inspection report of Dr. Priyanka Kumari / PW2, no safeguards (like atleast production of the original photographs or proving the copies of same by complying rules of evidence; or calling all members of raiding party to witness box including one Abhay Sethi; or calling the lady patient found in the witness box etc.) have been taken care of. It appears that this court is called upon to hold the accused guilty only on the basis of a proforma filled by PW2 herself. Infact, even the attendance register / record of PW2 has not been placed on record to show as to whether the said official was actually working and was on duty for DMC on 21.04.2015 i.e. on the date of raid. It is not even clear from the record as to whether the facts stated in the proforma Ex.PW1/C / Ex.PW3/A were told to her by the accused or not. If, presuming that the said facts were told to her by the accused, why the same is not signed by the accused is not clear. In the absence of any such safeguard, in my opinion, the evidence led FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 14 of 19 before this court is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
30. Ld. APP for State argued that subsequent to the filing of the said proforma with the DMC, accused was given a show cause by the DMC and in response to the said chow cause, accused admitted the fact that he was not registered with DMC or has any medical qualification to practice allopathic medicine. In this regard, my attention was drawn to Ex.PW1/D (show cause notice dated 17.06.2015 issued by DMC to the accused); Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F (colly.) (purported replies of accused in response to the notice of the DMC). In this regard, suffice is to say that Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F (colly.) purportedly claims to have been written and signed by the accused. But, the said documents were never sent for FSL examination ever. In criminal jurisprudence, accused has a right of silence and it is for the prosecution to have shown that Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F (colly.) were actually written and signed by the accused for this court to have read these documents against the accused. The same should have been done by leading independent evidence. Merely filing of the said document before this court shall not mean that the contents of the same stood proved. In the absence of any evidence to show that the said documents actually bear the signatures / writings of the accused or that they were given by the accused to the DMC in response to the show cause notice, the same cannot be read against the accused.
31. In my opinion, Ex.PW1/E or Ex.PW1/F (colly.) are sought to be treated as admissions by the prosecution and as per the ld. APP, the said admissions of the accused was not made to any police officer and thus shall not be hit FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 15 of 19 by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In my opinion, the said two documents are still hit by section 24 of Indian Evidence Act as the same appears to have been obtained from the accused under threat of action being taken against him. It does not transpire from the record as to whether the accused was made to understand that any reply given by him in the form of Ex.PW1/F (colly.) or Ex.PW1/E shall be used against him in a criminal proceedings or not. Infact, Ex.PW1/F appears to be a typed proforma given by DMC to the accused wherein his name was filled out alongwith other details. Such proforma reply, in my opinion, cannot be treated to be an admission or confession of guilt by the accused for returning a finding of guilty against the accused. In my opinion, atleast, accused was required to be warned that such reply shall be used against him in a criminal proceedings and only if, accused himself voluntarily gave the reply, could the said proforma be used against him before this court. Again, after the FIR was registered in the case, the police could have sent the said two documents for FSL examination to show that the same bore the signatures / writings of the accused. As already noted, nothing of the sort has been done in this case. Thus, the argument raised by ld. APP on the basis of the said documents is declined.
32. In my opinion, if I consider the entire record, there appears to be no procedural or substantive safeguards laid out or followed by the complainant / DMC to lead this court to believe the case being set up by them as true. In my opinion, even though, there is a strong suspicion that the accused herein was actually practicing allopathic medicines without any proper medical qualification on 21.04.2015, still, said suspicion cannot take FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 16 of 19 place of admissible evidence which should be proved beyond reasonable doubt before somebody can be held guilty in a court of law. The settled principles of criminal jurisprudence qua joining of public or official witnesses to a raid or of proving documents as per document / photographs as per rules of evidence are settled principles of law which cannot be given a go by. Thus, accused herein, in my opinion, is entitled to be acquitted u/s. 27 of DMC Act also. It is ordered accordingly.
33. Before parting with this judgment, I may record my astonishment on the manner in which a statutory body i.e. DMC is carrying out its duty u/s. 10(h) of the said Act. As already noted, DMC is a statutory body which is duty bound in law to ensure that no unqualified person practices modern scientific system of medicine in Delhi. Infact, save and except on a complaint of DMC, even cognizance of offence cannot be taken against a given accused by any court of law. Again, DMC is given wide powers under the Act to fulfill its duties laid down inter alia u/s. 10(h) DMC Act in this regard. There appears to be no bar with the DMC to lay out certain standard operating procedures for fulfilling its aforesaid mandate.
34. But, for reasons best known to DMC, there appears to be no effort made by the authorities that be to ensure that the said duty casted on DMC by the said Act is fulfilled. There appears to be a total vacuum as to the manner in which a given raid / inspection under the DMC Act against unqualified persons is carried out by DMC. There appears to be no procedure or training to its personnel in this regard and different districts in Delhi may have different procedures for carrying out such raids / inspections. In the FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 17 of 19 absence of any such standard operating procedure, it is but obvious that most of the cases of DMC must be poorly prosecuted with no cogent evidence collected by them. This is a necessary inference which can be drawn from the case before this court. Again, in the absence of cogent evidence collected by DMC against unqualified medical practitioners, the cases of DMC are bound to fail in courts which shall, in turn, lead to a grave health hazard for the general public. From the photographs (which were placed before this court but not proved), it appears that the accused herein may have been prescribing certain antibiotic drugs to his victims. This court can take judicial cognizance of various medical studies wherein the abuse of antibiotics by such unqualified medical practitioners is leading to creation of super bugs. The prevailing corona virus situation is a case in point and in that back drop, DMC is expected to wake up to its statutory duty and perform it with vigor so that such illegal practices by unqualified persons may not wreck havoc with the individual lives of victims directly or with the general health of the society at large. If the DMC fails in its duty to ensure such unqualified doctors from practicing, the entire purpose of having a DMC in Delhi shall stand defeated. I have already noted that for stopping such unqualified persons from practicing in Delhi, DMC is the sole authority to take action. If, DMC fails to fulfill this duty, the consequences for the general public health shall be grave and it shall immensely damage the public faith in the allopathic system of medicine and will have unforeseen economic and social consequences for the entire society.
FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 18 of 1935. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, this court shall be failing in its duty if the DMC is not made aware of the observations made by this court in the body of this judgment.
36. Let copy of this judgment be sent to ld. Secretary DMC, who is expected to place the same before the DMC. The DMC shall look into the observations made by this court qua the manner and conduct of raids / inspections carried out under the directions of DMC by its various field functionaries. It is expected that the ld. DMC shall also take note of the lacunaes pointed out by this court in the manner in which the said raids / inspections are carried out and shall try to rectify the same by coming out with certain practices / procedures which shall cover the said lacunaes in future. In case, the DMC feels that certain powers may be necessary to be given to the DMC by the legislature concerned, necessary steps are expected to be taken by the DMC by bringing the said deficiencies in the Act / Rules to the notice of the officials concerned.
37. Let copy of this judgment be also sent to ld. Secretary, Health, Delhi Government for necessary information.
38. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, for reasons already stated, accused herein is acquitted of all charges leveled against him.
Digitally signedAASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA Announced in the Open GUPTA Date: 2020.02.20 16:21:49 +0700 AashishGupta Court on 20th day of February, 2020 MM(South East)07 Saket, New Delhi FIR No. 377/16 State v/s. Tapan Kumar Biswas Page 19 of 19