The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume r s of sri LEDIBoINA RAJESH KUIUAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri l4 Jithender Reddy Additional Publrc Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respor r ent No.1 and of sri Sama Sandep Reddy (SC for Telangana Medical Council, for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11808 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C No.1492 of 2025 on the file of learned X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, [Vledchal, registered for the offences under Section 318(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short'BNS'), Section 22 of Telangana lVledical Practitioners Registration (for short 'TMPR') Act,1968 and Section 34 read with 54 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short'NIVCA')

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Ayurvedic Doctor. lt is alleged that the petitioner is practicing Allopathy medicine, though she is qualified in Ayurvedic Medicine and that the said act of practicing allopathy medicine attracts the offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 15(2) of the lndian Medical Council Act 3 Heard the submissions of Sri L. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Ttr4C for respondent No.2 and Sri Jithender I ) 'i: tr l l).I (l l.P.\,) I I li0li ol l0l-i Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional publlc prosecutor for respondent No.'1 - State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has s r bmitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that thougl ;he is a qualified Doctor in Ayurvedic, she is prescribing the rredicines under Allopathy. He referred to the order, dated 02.09 025, of the Co_ ordinate Bench in Criminal petition No.7668 of : 025 and Batch. wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed he proceedings against the petitioners therein

5. The learned Standing Counsel for TIVC 11; argued that a person who is qualified in Ayurvedic, cann(,1 prescribe the medicines under Ailopathy and that it is a crea vioration of the regulations and is punishable for the offences und : Section 31 B(4) of BNS, section 22 of the TMpR Act and section 3t read with 54 of the NMCA. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the Crirr nal petition.

6. Perused the record

7. Since the offences alleged are under Section i1B (4) of BNS, Section 22 of TMPR Act and Section 34 read with ,t I of NlVlCA, the said Sections are pe(inent to be referred in this con r xt:_ 3 til'D,J Crl.l'.No. I 1808 o12025 Section 318(4) of BNS: "318. Cheating - XXX XXX I 2 3 4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 22 of TMPR Act

22. Whoever contravenes the provisions of clause(ii) of Section 20 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and on any subsequent, conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both " Sections 34 and 54 of NMCA "34. Bar to practice - (1) No person other than a person who is enrolled in the State Registrar or the National Register, as the case may be, shall - (a) be allowed to practice medicine as a qualified medical practrtioner; (b) hold office as a physician or surgeon or any other office, by whatever name called, which is meant to be held by a physician or surgeon; (c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 4 I]TD.J ilrl.i' No. I I ti08 of 2025 45 of the lndian Evidence Act, 'i8;'t (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medici r : Provided that the Commission shall submit : list of such medical professionals to the Central Gove nment in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided further that a foreign citizen who is er r rlleo in his country as a medical practitioner in accc-dance with the law regulating the registration of r tedical practitioners in that country may be pe 'mitted temporary registration in lndia for such periorl and in such manner as may be specrfied by the reguiat :ns. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the pr: risions of this section shall be punished with imprison I ent for a term which may extend to one year, or r,r h fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with bct r.

54. Cognizance of offences - No court sl-e ltake cognizance of an offence punishable under t js Act except upon a complaint in lvriting made in th s behalf by an officer authorized by the Commisstc,r cr the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or: State Medical Council, as the case may be." B. Thus, under the Ntr/CA and the Tl\IpR Act. ro person shall practice the modern medicine unless he is register: j under the Act for the said purpose.

9. The petitioner counsel has placed heavy r )liance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the I pex Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. Sfafe o, punjab and Othersl , wherein itwas held in paragraph Nos.47 ar d 49 that; (47):- A harmonious reading of Section 1S of t e 1956 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Act teads to the ct ,clusion that there rs no scope for a person enrolled on ,t e State ' 119981 7 Supremc Court Cases 579 DID,J Crl.P.No.l1808 of2025 Register of lndtan Medicine or the Central Register of lndian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person ls a/so enrolled on a State Medrcal Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act. (49):- The upshot of the above dlscusslon is that Rule 2(ee) (iii) as effected front 14.05.1960 is valid and does not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competence and the notifications lssued by the State Governments lhereundq are nol ulfua vies the said Rule and are legal. However, after sub-section (2) in Section 15 of the 1956 Act occupied the field vide Central Act 24 of 1964 with effect from 16.06.1964, the benefit of the said Rule and the notifications lssued thereunder would be available only in those Sfafes whele the privilege of such right to practice any system of medicine is conferred by the Sfafe Law under which practitioners of lndian medicine are registered in the State, which is for the time being in force. The position with regard to medical practitioners of lndian medicine holding degrees in integrated courses /s on the same plane inasmuch as if any Slate Aci recognizes their qualification as sufficient for registration in the State Medical Register, the prohibition contained in Section 15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act will not apply.

10. Therefore, even according to the decision of the Constitution Bench, a person qualified in a stream of medicine i.e., Ayurvedic cannot prescribe medicines pertaining to another stream unless it is conferred by a State Law which is in force. ln Telangana State, the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act is in force as discussed above. ln simplest of terms, a person who is practicing Ayurvedic medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy

11. ln the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been registered practilloner for Ayurvedic, however she has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the averments in the i I 6 ul D.J (,rl.l'.N0. I 1 803 ol20li complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress

12. The contention of the petitioner couns t I is that the prosecution needs to be launched by the Commi,j ,ioner of Ayush and that the present case is registered when the ccr rplaint is lodged by the Registrar of the Telangana Medical Courcil, which is not tenable in the eye of law and that there rs a clear I clation of Rule- B(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (C:npulsory Rural Medical Service and Compulsory Government Se. ice-Renewal of Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or l.l rrsing Home or lnstitution) Rules, 2013 (for short, 'the Rule; ) issued vide G.O.lVs.No.129, dated 08.08.2013, where the de-f,r ;to complainant failed to follow the procedure contemplated in i tle-B(7) of the Rules, which is as under:- "8(7)-Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in r information from the Council that a Medicat pract, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy is found practicing Modern Me t prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he sha, appropriate action against such practitioner in Government Memo.No.B914/L2/97-1 , dated 1 , appended to those rules as annexure., Commissioner, AYUSH shatl initiate approprtat, within thirty days on receipt of such information Council and intimate the action taken thereor Council." rceipt of ioner of 'oga or :ine or initiate :rms of )3.1997 '. The action 'om the to the 7 ETD-J Crt.P.No.l1808 of2025

13. A bare perusal of Rule B(7) of the Rules discloses that the Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action against such practitroner in terms of G O.Ms.No.B914lLZl97-1, dated 17.03.1997. The G.O.Ms.No.8914/L2l97-1, dated 17.03.1997, is a Circular lVlemorandum issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (L) Department which reads as follows:-

1. lt is to inform that the Supreme Courl of lndia has given a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the Medical Practitioners from practicing and prescribing drugs in other system of medicine in which they are not registered.

2. lt implies that a Medical Practitioner who ts registered under Allopathic system of medicine is prohibited from practicing and prescribing drugs in other systems of medicine like AyuNeda, Homeopathy, Unani etc.,

3. Similarly, the Medical Practitioners in Homeopathy, Ayurveda, and Unani etc., should confine their practice only to the sysferns of medicine in whiclt they are registered and should not practice and prescribe drugs in any other system oF medicine in which they are not registered.

4. Thus, the sale of Altopathic drugs to the Medical Practitioners who are not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmefrcs Act. Similarly, sale of Allopathic drugs to a patient on the prescription of a Medical Practitioner who is not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine ,s a/so an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

5. Likewise, drugs belonging to other systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani Homeopathy etc., should not be sold either to the Medical Practitioners or to the patients on the prescriptions of Medical Practitioners who are not registered in the respective sysfems of medicines. \ 8 c.t p N" n so8 ,,f2I;?.]

14. Thus, it is mentioned in the above said )ircular that the person who is practicing Ayurveda cannot prescr:e nredicines in any other system in which they are not registerec. li rs pertinent to take note of Rule-8(1) to (10) of the Rures in its e rtirety, which is extracted for the sake of reference:_ -t :].. anstitute f two or Rule_g(1 ) The Chairman of lhe Councit mar one or more each consisting three memberst-ommittees (^2^t ,l he Committee or Commr ee:; .. . 'r,;:j ;' "' s h a t t p e io r m t n " t o ii* i,'n"' iui,i,, .', ! ,") ,3n:,;;::"^oto or on a petition presented tc )e (b) Visit or inspect, eithe giving a nolrce )' surprisingry. un, no"ol,^!'- o' .llltrsing home tn.stttutton or places *o'11! atleged to ttuin\,iiuJ'"u'" unethical practices - (c) Visit or inspect either an nursing hc t , or nstrtution or ptace *h"!^h?:pitul .?.! quacks or oi"t[r""*i""2! un-qualifiecl petso" svstemotscieitiii;;;";: not betons to Mo,l ', j n"ii::;";;;"";;"''',;;:"i,:::n",2:;;:,"#rfr,;;,,, ',:l,,Xii:,"[,:';r:":: T{"r'i!,:, or nursins homa . a t p ra ct i t i o n e " w h o s e n a m e s ;;-r"' " ;;;:, :1,,1t trom the register t, attesed b b"'"'""":;;;i,i;7' "i"," ; f;: ; :, y :i:;::.,:,, : :",!i " :::;:;'#i"n {t#;tri#,!ffiW'f :ixi'|":;w j U) Any act of the t "rr;trl;;,t'l*,y,fi*;,*:f e d i 9 1,x""' **;, 9 EID.J Crl P.No I 1808 of2025 Council is unttecoming on the parl af a practitioner or m ode rn scie ntific med icine. (5) Where the information in question relating to practice of Modern Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner of other systems of medicine, such as AyuNedic, Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, the Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (6) The abstract and where a complaint has been lodged, the complaint and all other documents bearing on the case shall be submitted by the Registrar to the Chairman, who may if thinks fit, instruct the Registrar to furnish the institution concerned with a copy of the complaint and other documents and invite the head of such institution by means of a registered letter to submit any explanation he may have to offer within a period of ten clear working days. (7) Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH rs in receipt of information from the Council that a Medical Practitioner of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Yoga or naturopathy is found practicing Modern Medicine or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of Government Memo.No.8914/LUg7-1, dated 17-03.1997 appended Io ,hose ruies as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall inttiate appropriate action within thitty days on receipt of such information from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council. (8) Whenever any information is received or evidence is brought before any Committee constituted by the Council under caluse (iv) of Section 20 of the Act that drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggists or Chemists on the prescription of practitioners of other systems of medicine, the Council on receipt of such repoft from the Committee shall communicate he same to the Drug lnspector or Assrsfanf Director of Drug Control Administration with a request to take appropriate action on the Druggist or Chemist concerned as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmefics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. lf the council come to the conclusion that no action has been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or the Assistant Director, Drug Control Administration within a period of thirty days, the Chairman of the Council may instruct ) ,he Registrar to furnish the details to Director General, \ Drugs Control Administration with a copy of information l0 F]'ID,J Crl.P.No I 1308 ol'202i received in this respect or copy of complaint ano ther documents and request him to issue nec(t! sary instructions to the Drug lnspector or Assrslanl D r ctor concerned. (9) Where, tn any clinic or hospital or nursing hot other institution or place where un-qualified persot quacks are found practicing modern syste.r Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of mc medicine, criminal proceedings will be initiat( ( making a complaint to the Station House O concerned as per Secllon 22 of the Act. 'icer (10) Where it is found that the Station House O 'icer has not acted upon the complaint-petition cf the Council, the Chairman, APMC who may thint:: fit, instruct the Registrar to furnish the information torq ther with other documents on record to the Superinten lent of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub-Divi; nat Police Officer with a request to instruct the SL tion House Offtcer to initiate appropriate acticr in accordance with the Law. 'l 5 A conjornt perusal of Rule-8(9) and (10) of Ite Rules woutd reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a c )mplaint as per Section 22 of lhe Ttt/PR Act. Therefore, in the pr)sent case, the complaint is lodged by the Registrar of Telangana I ledical Council. which is very much inconsonance with Sub-Rulel; (9) and (10) of Rule-B of the Rules.

16. But, under Section 54 of Ntr/CA, no ()r urt shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complain' n writing by an officer authorized by the Commission or the Ethi ,s 6n6 Medical Registration Board or a State Medical Council. Th I ;. it has to be a 1l ETD.J (lrl.P.No I l80li o1 2025 complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: "2. Definitions - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has commrtted an offence, but does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodged before the competent Court by the authorized officer and it does not include a police officer. ln the present case, the complaint rs filed before the Station House Officer by the Registrar of the State Medical Council. Under Section 54 of the NMCA, an olflcer authorized by the State l\4edical Council can file the complaint. Thus, there is nothing wrong if the Registrar files the complaint, but the said complaint has to be made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House Officer. Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure adopted by the concerned authority and the said lapse would affect the case in such a way that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court.

18. As discussed supra, Sub-Rules 8, 9 and 10 of Rule 8 of the Rules empowers the Registrar to initiate the criminal proceedings by \.\ 12 t ft).J rl.l'. \o Ill08 of 2025 liF, + making a complaint to the Station House Office and when the Station House Officer does not act upon the same le shall furnish the information along with other documents to the SL rerintendent of Police to instruct the Station House Officer to ini irte appropriate action. As per Section 54 of the NN/CA, an authorizs j person under the Commission or the Ethics and tvledical Registrari ,n Board or the State Medical Council can initiate the proceedirl s. Thus, the Registrar is competent to initiate the proceedings ie , he can file a complaint, but it has to be made in writing before: the concerned Cou rt.

19. ln the present case, the Registrar has file,i the complaint before the Station House Officer. Hence, no : curt can take cognizance of the said complaint. Therefore, r ontinuation of proceedings in the present case against the petitic r er is abuse of process of law

20. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.'l 492 of ',025 on the file of Iearned X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First I ass, lVledchal, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. However, it is made clear that the authorized officer is at liberty to ritiate criminal proceedings strictly in accordance with law i.e., in zr, cordance with Section 54 of the NMCA t3 E11),J Crl P \o 11808 of202i 21 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at A/edchat Athevelly, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 2 The SHO Alwal Police Station Cyberabad Commisionerte. Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 3 One CC to SRl. LEDIBOINA RAJESH KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC SRI SAMA SANDEP REDDY (SC for Telangana Medical Councit) toPUCl

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Courtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies PIn,PSL- 4V- t \ i,. ?ffi -(- t'Al c-\ - -.-.2/ HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 CRLP.No.11808 ot 2025 ,< -uL \ .i\