Delhi District Court
Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad vs Meer Singh on 11 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-10, WEST DISTRICT, THC,
DELHI
Ct. Cases 6211/2016
DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Meer Singh
(Nangloi)
U/s : 29/30 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa ParishadAct, 1998
JUDGMENT
A. Date of Commission of offence 08.07.2010
B. Date of filing of present complaint 09.09.2010
C. Name of complainant Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad C.S.C. -III,
DDA marked, B Block, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092 through its registrar
D. Name of the accused persons, their Meer Singh S/o Nihal Singh, Dr. Meer Singh
parentage and residence Clinic, Main Nazafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-41.
E. Offence complained of or proved 20/30 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act,
1998.
F. Date of framing of charges/notice 18.01.2019
G. Date of commencement of evidence 11.07.2013
H. Plea of the accused Not guilty
I. Date on which judgment is reserved 28.07.2025
J. Final Order Acquitted
K. Date of Judgment 11.09.2025
DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD
Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi
Page no.1 of 11
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the complainant is that Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad through its anti-quackery team, on 08.07.2010 constituted by Dr. Suresh Kumar, Dr. Suresh Kaushik, Dr. Jagdish, Dr. Shakuntala Sharma, Dr. Harday Ram Parashar and Dr. Jagdev Singh inspected the area falling in the jurisdiction and raided the premises i.e. Meer Singh Clinic, main Nazafgarh Road, Nangloi and found accused practicing Indian System of Medicines therein. Accused was asked to produce his registration with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and also his medical qualification but he failed to produce any certificate of registration with the complainant or any certificate of recognized medical qualification to practice Indian System of Medicines. Accused filed the proforma A giving their details that he has been doing medical practice at the said address for last 18 years and that he prescribes Ayurvedic DEHM medicines to his patients. Accused did not appear before the Parishad on 12.07.2010 despite undertaking. Accused was found practicing Indian System of Medicines without registration and he also falsely assumed himself as a practitioner under clause (K) of Section 2 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act. Therefore the present DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.2 of 11 complaint was filed by the complainant as the accused had committed offence U/s 29/30 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act.
2. Vide order dt. 09.09.2010 accused Meer Singh was summoned in the case for offence punishable u/s 29/30 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act.
3. Thereafter Pre Charge Evidence was conducted in the case and the same was closed on 29.08.2017.
4. Thereafter arguments on charge were heard.
5. Vide order dt. 18.01.2019 charge was framed against accused Meer Singh for offence u/s 29/30 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act.
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for Post Charge Evidence.
7. Complainant examined Dr. Farhar Umar(complainant), Ex- Registrar of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad as CW1, Suresh Kumar Kaushik as CW2 and PSE was closed on 29.08.2017.
DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.3 of 11
8. CW1 Dr. Farhat Umar (complainant) ex-registrar DBCP had deposed that in Delhi only that person can practice in Indian System of medicines (ISM) who is registered with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad grants registration to only those persons who have qualified from the institutions as per the schedule of IMCC Act. If one practices in ISM without being registered with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad in Delhi, he commits offence punishable under Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and Directorate of Health Services have been publishing advertisements/public notices in various newspapers regarding above said facts. Two photocopies of such public notices as got published by Directorate of Health Services which are mark A and B while nine photocopies of such notices as got published by Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad are Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/9. He further deposed that on 08.07.2010 an Anti-Quackery team was constituted consisting of Dr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Dr. Suresh Kumar, Dr. Jagdish, Dr. Shakuntala Sharma, Dr. Hirday Ram Parashar and Dr. Jagdev Singh for inspection of area of Nangloi to find if any person is practicing in ISM without being registered with DBCP. On inspection, Mir Singh was found practicing in ISM without being registered with DBCP at Main Nazafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 with clinic name 'Mr. Meer Singh Clinic'.
DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.4 of 11 A proforma was filled by alleged Mir Singh Ex. CW1/10 in which he mentioned that he is practicing in Ayurvedic Medicines in column no. 05 and he was given hearing on 12.07.2010 for hearing before DBCP. He did not turn up on 12.07.2010 before DBCP. Therefore present complaint was filed before this court by him being registrar of complainant at the time which is Ex. CW1/11.
9. CW2 Suresh Chander Kaushik had deposed that in NCT of Delhi, only those who are registered with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad can practice in Indian System of Medicine. The Parishad grants registration only to those persons who possess recognized medical qualifications as recognized by Central Council of India. If a person is found practicing is ISM in NCT of Delhi without being registered Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, the Parishad initiate legal action against him as per provisions of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act. He further deposed that on 08.07.2010, the anti-quackery tem of the Parishad constituted by himself, Suresh Chand, Jagdev Singh, Shakuntala Sharma and Hriday Ram Parashar(all doctors) inspected the area falling within the jurisdiction of area of PS Nangloi to ensure that no unqualified person is practicing in ISM. They also inspected the clinic premises of accused i.e. Meer Singh Clinic situated at Main Nazafgarh Road, DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.5 of 11 Nangloi, Delhi and found the accused practicing in Ayurved System of Medicine. The accused was asked to produce his registration with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and also documents of his qualification but he failed to produce the same. The accused filled up the proforma A which is Ex. CW1/10 was prepared in duplicate and one copy thereof was given to the accused and the other copy was submitted by him with the Parishad on the same day.
10. The matter was then listed for SA. On 11.11.2022 statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded.
11. Accused did not lead defence evidence and therefore DE was closed on 08.08.2023.
12. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
13. It is argued on behalf of accused that on 12.07.2010 DBCP Officials got a form filled from accused. However, there is no seizure of any prescription slip which shows that accused was prescribing Ayurvedic or Allopathic treatment to the patients. Only on the basis of consent form they had filed the present complaint.
DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.6 of 11 Accused was actually performing electro homeopathy. No patient had been examined by the complainant to show that accused was giving them Ayurvedic or Allopathic treatment. It is further argued that no document had been filed by anti quackary team to show that they were authorized to raid. Mere stereotype complaint is filed by them without any proof. Thus the accused persons be acquitted.
14. Before proceeding with the discussion, I would reiterate relevant provisions of law involved in the case:
"Section 20 of the Act:
Fee for and certificate of provisional registration- (1) Any person who desires to be registered provisionally under section 28 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970),shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Registrar and shall pay the prescribed fee.
(2) Every person whose name is entered in the register under sub-
section (I) shall be given a certificate of provisional registration in the prescribed form. Such certificate shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein.
Section 30 of the Act:
False assumption of practitioner under this Act to be an offence- Any person who falsely assumes that he is a practitioner as defined in clause
(k) of section 2 and practises the Bhartiya Chikitsa (Indian System of DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.7 of 11 Medicine) shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend upto three years and with fine which may extend upto fifty thousand rupees.
Explanation- Under this section, punishment can be awarded only to practitioners as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of this Act and no punishment may be awarded to anyone practising Veterinary medicine or Veterinary surgery or Homoeopathic or Modern Scientific System of Medicine."
15. As per section 2(b) Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, if a person practices in Ayurvedic Medicine, same falls under the domain of the Act and the person has to get licence with registration for the Parishad being qualified to practice so. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant is alleging that accused were administering Ayurvedic Medicine or prescribing it to the patient with registration. However, in support of its case complainant had not placed any prescription slip on record purportedly issued by the accused to depict that accused was actually prescribing Ayurvedic Medicines to the patient. Further, not even a single patient was examined by the complainant who could depose that they were undergoing treatment from the accused at the relevant time with the use of Ayurvedic Medicines. Though the complainant is stating that they had constituted an anti quackery team and accused was found DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.8 of 11 practicing modern system of medicine during the relevant period. However, no document or prescription slip or any medicine is seized by the raiding team from the premises in which the accused is alleged to have been operating the Ayurvedic system of Medicine. The raiding team/ anti quackery team had also not placed any photographs of the premises of the accused in which he was operating the clinic from where he was administrating Ayurvedic Medicine for any ailment or treatment. No patient or any public person from the locality had been examined by the complainant to substantiate their version that the accused was found practicing Indian system of medicine without requisite medical qualification.
16. The prosecution had merely relied upon the raid conducted by the team of anti quackery constituted of Dr. S.C. Kaushik, Dr. Suresh Kumar, Dr. Jagdish, Dr. Shakuntala Sharma, Dr. Hredya Ram Parashar and Dr. Jagdev and the consent form Ex. CW1/10 to rely upon its version that accused was found practicing in Ayurvedic system of Medicine in its clinic -Meer Singh Clinic, Main Nazafgargh Road, Nangloi, without any requisite registration from the Parishad. There is nothing on record to show that the raiding team or the registrar of Parishad had given any notice to the accused to produce any requisite medical qualification recognized by the DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.9 of 11 Parishad. Though the prosecution is relying upon the consent from Ex.CW1/10 in which it is mentioned that accused is practicing Ayurvedic DEHM but no separate notice had been given to the accused to produce the requisite qualification document on his failure to appear before Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad on 12.07.2010.
17. In order to prove its case prosecution had to prove the cogent evidence that accused was actually practicing Ayurvedic Medicine without registration. There is no seizure of things, medicines, prescription slip, photographs, video footage of the clinic, patients to prove its case. Prosecution has to stand on its own legs by adducing credible evidence for proving the guilt of accused. Due to multiple investigating lapses by raiding party, prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused are to the investigating lapses pertaining to seizure of documents, prescription slips, medicines, photographs, video footage of the clinic, the benefit of doubt is granted in favour of accused. The insufficient evidence on record cannot be basis for conviction.
18. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.10 of 11 contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused can completely dismantle the case of complainant. In the present case there are cogent material on record to suggest accused was found practicing Indian system of medicine without possessing requisite medical qualification and registration certificate in contravention to section 29/30 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act 1998. Allegations against accused are not proved.
Conclusion & Decision
19. Considering the above discussion and material placed on record, I hold that the complainant/ prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accused is therefore acquitted from offence punishable U/s 29/30 Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act 1998. Digitally signed by VIJAYSHREE VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.09.11 16:30:10 +0530 Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 11.09.2025 JMFC-10/WEST/THC/DELHI 11.09.2025 DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD Vs. Satish Saini CT No. : 10714/2016 PS Nangloi Page no.11 of 11