Delhi District Court
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad vs Satish on 3 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: :Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish
CC No. : 54870/16
CNR No. : DLET020055242015
P.S. : Mayur Vihar
Date of commission of offence : 17.06.2014
Name of Informant/complainant : Dr. Neelesh Ahuja
Name of accused : Satish Chand
Cognizance under section/s : s. 33 DBCP Act, 1998
Charges framed under section/s : s. 29/30 DBCP Act, 1998
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments : 03.09.2025
Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Complainant : Sh. Mukesh Anand
For the accused. : Ms. Rishala
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 1 / 8
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Satish Chand is facing trial for offences s. 29/30 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998.{Herein referred as DBCP Act}.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that the present case was lodged on the complainant of the Registrar of DBCP, Dr. Nee- lesh Ahuja, in the capacity of a public servant discharging his official duties. As per the complaint, on 1706.2014 the parishad through Dr. Abdul Haseeb, member of DBCP and associated nodal officer, Anti Quackery Inspection Team inspected the area of Trilok Puri to ensure that no unqualified person was practicing Indian System of Medicines(Hereinafter 'ISM') and while doing so, he inspected the premises of accused situated at 25/61, Trilok Puri, Delhi -110091 where the ac- cused was found practicing ISM(Ayurveda). Accused was asked to produce his registration with DBCP and his medical qualifications but accused failed to pro- duced either. He however, filled up and signed Proforma A mentioning the details that he had been doing medical practice at the aforesaid address for the last 06 years and is holder of DAM as his medical qualification while being registered with UP-2019 and that he prescribes and gives Ayurvedic medicines to his pa- tients. Complainant claims that Dr. Abdul Haseeb clicked two photographs of the accused and one of his driving license. On 18.06.2014, accused appeared before the Parishad and submitted a photocopy of experience certificate dated CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 2 / 8 23.06.2003 allegedly issued by Mittal Hospital alongwith photocopy with Aadhar Card. Accused also submitted a written statement dated 18.06.2014 submitting copy of his experience certificate admitting that he is practicing in ISM(Ayurveda) for last 06 years and that he is not registered with DBCP or Delhi Medical council or any other council and stated that he had working experience as nursing assistant for 05 years with Mittal Hospital. Complainant claims that accused submitted a hand written letter signed dated 02.07.2014 admitting his practicing ISM and requested for grant of time till 30.08.2014 while annexing a photocopy of discharge summary of one Vijay Devi. Complainant claims that the accused has been practicing ISM without the proper registration and representing himself as a registered practitioner while assuming himself as a practitioner as per section 29(k) DBCP Act despite, not being competent to practice in the same and has thereby committed an offence u.s 29/30 DBCP Act.
3. The present complaint was instituted and taken up on 16.07.2015. PSE was dis- pensed as the same was filed by a public servant. Accused was summoned and he entered appearance on 08.09.2015 and was admitted to court bail on the same date. The matter was then listed for pre-charge evidence. CW-01 Dr. Neelesh Ahuja was examined and discharged on 16.08.2016. CE was closed on 16.10.2019 and after arguments on charge, charge u/s s. 29/30 DBCP Act, 1998 was framed on 01.09.2022.
CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 3 / 8
4. In post charge evidence, CW-01 Dr. Neelesh Ahuja was examined and discharged on 02.06.2023. No other witness was examined and accordingly post charge evi- dence was closed on 13.11.2024. SA was recorded on 01.09.2025 wherein ac- cused chose not to lead DE.
5. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both sides and the matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
6. In criminal proceedings, the case of the prosecution must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of reasonable doubt and an accused is innocent unless proved guilty. (Raja Naykar v. State of Chattisgarh 2024 INSC 56). With this backdrop, this Court will proceed to examine whether the prosecution has proved it's case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
7. The case against the accused is that on 17.06.2014, upon inspection of premises at 25/61, Trilok Puri, Delhi-91, he was found practising Indian system of medicines and upon being asked to produce the registration with DBCP, he failed to produce any certificate, committing offence u/s 29/30 DBCP Act 1998. CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 4 / 8
8. Section 29 DBCP Act provides the penalty for false claim of registration and states that a person who falsely represents himself to be registered shall on conviction be punished with fine extending upto Rs. 50,000/- or RI upto two years or both. Further section 30 DBCP Act provides that any person who falsely assumes himself to be a practitioner defined u/s 2(k) DBCP Act and practises ISM shall be punishable with RI upto three years or fine extending upto Rs. 50,000/-.
9. In order to discharge this burden, the complainant had examined one Dr. Neelesh Ahuja as CW-01. Perusal of the testimony of this witness shows that this witness is not an eye witness. He has categorically stated in his examination in chief recorded on 16.08.2016 that the visit was made by one Dr. Abdul Haseeb who found the accused practising ISM without registration. This person was never examined as a witness on behalf of the complainant. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he has no personal knowledge of the case. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of this witness. For reasons best known to the complainant, the material witness i.e. Dr Abdul Haseeb was never examined by the complainant. The same is fatal for the case of the complainant as he was a material witness who could have shed light upon the factum of the inspection and the fact that accused Satish Chand was actually practising ISM when premises at 25/61, Trilok Puri, Delhi was inspected on 17.06.2014. CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 5 / 8
10. It is settled law that a witness who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the persecution case, which has not been convincingly brought to the fore otherwise, is not examined though being available, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and the withholding of such material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference by holding that if the said material witness would have been examined, it would not have supported the case of the prosecution.(Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors AIR 2001 SCE 2328).
11. It would also be tried to observe that this witness has relied upon certain documents i.e. public notices exhibited as Ex. CW-01/1 to Ex. CW-01/6, proforma A which is Mark A, photographs as Mark B, DL as Mark C(colly), certain documents as Mark C and Mark D respectively, statement which is Mark E, inspection report which is Mark F, written statement dated 02.07.2014 of accused which is Mark G and annexure which is Mark H. As regards Ex. CW- 01/1 to Ex. CW-01/6, the same is not beneficial for the complainant's case since the same are public notices do not in any way prove that the accused was contravening section 29/30 DBCP Act. As regards the remaining documents, the original document have not been produced by the complainant. While it is settled CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 6 / 8 law that documents can be proved by secondary evidence, it is also settled law that the pre requisites entitling the proof of documents by secondary evidence must be satisfied. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to prove that the prerequisites for leading secondary evidence were satisfied in the present case. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon these documents.
12. At the sake of repetition, it is again stated that the sole witness examined by the complainant is not an eye witness to the incident in question and hence no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Further the material witness Dr. Abdul Haseeb has also not been examined. Hence, the case of the complainant must fail.
FINDINGS
13. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the primary burden in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prose- cution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the pre- ponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 7 / 8
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to estab- lish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
14. The accused Satish Chand S/o Sh. Kali Charan is hereby acquitted of the of- fence punishable under Section 29/30 DBCP Act.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.09.04 16:55:55 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) On 03 rd September 2025 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.CC No. 54870/16 Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Vs. Satish Page 8 / 8