Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others v. State of t,unjab and Othersl wherein it was held in paragraph Nos

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV :ADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14808 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petiti,r rer-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crirr-. No.182 of 2025 on the file of Gandhinagar Police Station. Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) and :19(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short "BNS"), Sectic r 20(ii) read wilh 22 of Telangana tVledical Practitioners Registratir n (for short TMPR') Act,'1 968 and Section 34 read with 54 of Naii rnal Medical Commission Act, 20'1 9 (for short NMCA') 2 The case of the prosecution is that the p,: itioner is a registered Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner vide Registrat on No.1257 It is alleged that the petitioner is practicing Allopa:l y medicine, though he is qualified in BAI\4S and that the said ac cf practicing allopathy medicine attracts the offences under Section; 3'lB(4) and 319(2) of BNS, Section 20(ii) read wilh 22 of the T\ PR Act and Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA

3. Heard the submissions of Sri B. Vamshidhar R< ddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sama Sandeep Rr: ldy, learned 2 ETD.J C.l. P. No. 14801'l of2025 Standing Counsel for TMC for respondent No.2 and Sri E, Ganesh, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that though he is a qualified Doctor in Ayurvedic, he is prescribing the medicines under Allopathy He referred lo the order, dated 02.09.2025, of the Co_ ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.766B of 2025 and Batch, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein. 5 The learned Standing Counsel for TMC has argued that a person who is qualified in Ayurvedic, cannot prescribe the medicines under Allopathy and that it is a clear violation of the regulations and is punishable for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS, Section 20(ii) read with22 of the TMpR Act and Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned Assistant Public prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in the Criminal petition.

7. Perused the record 3 I]1'D,J (r I No.l4ti08ol-2025 Srnce the offences alleged are under Sections 31g(4) and 319(2) of BNS, Section 20(ii) read with22of TMPRAc rnd Section 34 read with 54 of NMCA, the said Sections are per rnent to be referred in this context:- Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS: "318. Cheating - (1 ) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly indr r :s the person deceived to deliver any property to e ry person, or to make, alter or destroy the whok: or any part of a valuable security, or anything wh c l- is signed or sealed, and which is capable of bc rg converted into a valuable security, shalt )e punished with imprisonment of either descriptior or a term whrch may extend to seven years, and s t all also be liable to fine.

319. Cheating by personation - (1 ) xxx (2) Whoever cheats by personation shall be punrsr^:d with imprisonment of either description for a t: m which may extend to five years, or with fine, or n th both." Section 20(ii) and 22 of TMpR Act: '20. Notwithstanding anything to the contrarl in any other law for the time being in force,_ (i) (ii) no person other than a registered practitir,r er shall, with effect from such date as may )e specified by the Government by notification in this behalf, practice the modern scier t iic 4 E'TD,J Crl.P.No.l4808 of2025 medrcine or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication as practicing or as being prepared to so practice;

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 practitioner; (b) hold office as a physrcian 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 srgn or authenticate a medrcal 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 45 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine: Provided that the Commission shall submit a list of such medrcal professionals to the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided further that a foreign citizen who is enrolled in his country as a medical practitioner in accordance with the law regulating the registration of medical practitioners in that country may be permitted temporary registration in lndia for such period and in such manner as may be specified by the regulations. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be punished with imprisonment for 5 EI'D,J (r I No.1.1808of2025 a term which may extend to one year, or with f re which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

54. Cognizance of offences - No court shall r ke cognizance of an offence punishable under this , rct except upon a complaint in writing made in this be t alf by an officer authorized by the Commission or he Ethics and Medical Registration Board or a St rte Medical Council, as the case may be."

8. Thus, under the NMCA and the Tti/PR Act, no )erson shall practice the modern medicine unless he is registered r lder the Act for the said purpose.

9. The petitioner counsel has placed heavy relie nce on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Ap _. < Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. State of t,unjab and Othersl , wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.47 and . 9 that; (47):- A harmonious reading of Section 1 S of ifte 956 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Acl leads lo the conctr sion that there /s no scope for a person enrolted on lhe , tate Register of lndian Medicine or the Central Regist, r of lndian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicit e in any of its branches unless lhat person rs a/so enralle,l )n a State Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 \ct. (49):- The upshot ot lhe above drscusslon is that ?ule 2(ee) (iii) as effected from 14.05.1960 is valid and doe ; not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competetl(( and the notifications lssued by the State Govern.t ents thereunder are not ultra viei the said Rule and are , ryal. However, after sub-section (2) in Section 15 of the ,956 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 issued thereunder would be averr able only in those Stales where the privilege of sucf .ight to practice any system of medicine is conferred D , the State Law under which practitioners of lndian met cine I 119981 ? Supreme Courr Cases 579 6 ETD.J Crl.P.No.14808 0f2025 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 is on the same plane inasmuch as if any State Act recognizes their qualification as sufficienl for registration in the State Medical Register, the prohibition iontained in Section 1 5(2)(b) of the 1956 Act wilt not appty.

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 unress 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 petitroner is alleged to have been registered practitioner for Ayurvedic, however he has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the averments in the complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and the investigatron is still in progress.

12. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that the prosecution needs to be launched by the Commissioner of Ayush and that thg present case is registered when the complaint is lodged by the Vigilance Officer of the Telangana Medical Council, which is not tenable in the eye of raw and that there is a crear vioration of Rule-8(7) of the Andhra pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory l I /' 7 ('l El t),J No.l{80E of2025 Rural Medical Service and Compulsory Governme rt Service- Renewal of Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or Nursrng Home or lnstitution) Rules, 2013 (for short the Rules') issued vide G.O.lvls.No.129, dated 08 08.2013, where he de-facto complainant failed to follow the procedure contemplate i in Rule-B(7) of the Rules, which is as under:- "8(7)-Whenever the Commissioner, AyUSH is in rec.- ot of information from the Council that a Medicat practiticr :r of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and yolt or Naturopathy is found practicing Modern Medict t : or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall ,r tiate appropriate action against such practitioner in ter ., s of Govemment Memo.No.?91 4/L2/97-1 , dated 17 0: | 997 appended to those rules as annexure-ll fhe Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriate i:tion within thirly days on receipt of such informalion frcr the Council and intimate the action taken thereon < the Council."

13. A bare perusal of Rule 8(7) of the Rules disc,:;es that the Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action , gainst such practitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.B914lLZl9l-1, date j 1 7 .03.1997 . The G.O.tr/s.No.8914/L2l97-1, dated 1l .03.1997, s a Circutar Memorandum issued by the Government of And I a pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (L) Depa(ment wl ch reads as follows:-

1. lt is to inform that the Supreme Courl of lndia has r iven a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the tve tical Practitioners from practicing and prescribing drugs ir ther system of medicine in which they are not registered. 8 E I'D.J ( rl.P.No. 14308 o12025

2. lt implies that a Medical practitioner who is 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 praclitioners in Homeopathy, Ayurveda, and Una etc., should confine their practi;e only to the syslems of medicine in which they are registered and should not practice and prescribe drugs in any other system of medicine in whtch they are not registered.

4. Thus, the sa/e of A opathic drugs to the Medical Practitioners who are not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine is an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetlcs Act Sim arly, sale of Altopathic drugs to a patient on the prescription of a Medical Practitioner who is not regislered in the Allopathrc system of medrcine ls a/so an offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

5. Likewise, drugs belonging to other systems of medicine like AyuNeda, Unani Homeopathy etc., shoutd 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 syslems of medicines.

14. Thus, it is mentioned in the above said Circular that the person who is practicing Ayurvedic cannot prescribe medicines in any other system in which they are not registered. lt is pertinent to take note of Rule-B(1) to (10) of the Rules in its entirety, which is extracted for the sake of reference:- Rule-g(l) The Chairman of the Council may constitute one or more Committees each consisting ol two or three members. (2) The Committee or Committees so constituted shall perlorm the following functions, namely; (a) lnquire suomoto or on a petition presented to the Chairman 9 (r I1 I D-J No.I 1808 ot 1025 (b) Visit or nspect, either by giving a notice Lr surprisingly, any hospital or Nursing home tr institution or places where unethical practices at ) alleged to be in vogue. (c) Visit or inspect eilher any hospital or nursing hornt or institution or place where un-qualified persons ( t quacks or doctors who do not belong to Moder-t Syslem otr Scienlific Medicine but are practictng modem medicine and are prescribing drugs ,,t nodern medicine. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home ot institution or place where the medical practitionets whose names were removed from the register ate alleged to be continuing to practice withorn surrendering the cerlificate of registration withorr sufficienl cause. (3) Whenever information, is received lhat a Medrct Practitioner has been indulged in unethical practirx: whtch are unbecoming on the paft of any Medtc t Practitioner the Registrar shall make an abstract ) suclt infonnation. (4) Any act of the Medical Practitioner sllall L ( construed as unethical, when he or she has indulgecl t any act which is included in chapter 6 of lndian Medicl Cottncil (Professional Conduct, etiquette and ethic ) Regulations-21j2 or any act which in the opinion of u ( Council is unbecoming on the paft of a practitioner t modern scientific medicine. (5) Where the information in question relating ( practice of Modern Scientific Medicine or prescrib ,( drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner : olher systems of medicine, such as Ayurved,: Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, tt Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (6) The abstract and where a complaint has beci lodged, the complaint and all other documents bearh4 on the case shall be submitted by the Registrar to \ Chairman, who may if thinks fit, instruct the Registrar t, furnish the institution concerned with a copy of ttr complaint and other documents and invite the head c such institution by means of a registered letter t, submit any explanation he may have to offer within , period of ten clear working days. l0 I] ID,J Crl.P.No.l4808 ot2025 (7) Whenever the Commissioner, AytJSH is in receipt of information from the Council that a Medical Practitioner of AyuNeda, Sitldha, lJnani, Homeopalhy and Yoga or naturopathy is found practicing Modein Medlcine or prescribing drugs of Modern Medicine, he shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of Government Memo.No.891 4/L2/gl-1 , daled 17.03.1997 appended to those rules as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AytJSH shall initiate appropriate action within thirty days on receipt of such information hom 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 nct tnat drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggisls or Chemists on the prescription of practitioners oiotner systems of medicine. the Council on receipt of such repoft from the Committee shall communicate the same to the Drug lnspeclor or Ass/sla/l Director of Drug Control Admnistralion with a request lo hkle appropriate action on the Druggisl or Chentist c^oncerned as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereinder. tf the council come to lhe conclusion that no action has been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or lhe Assislarl Director, Drug Control Administtation within a period of thirty days, the Chairman of the Councl rnay instrucl the Registrar to furnish the details to Directoi General Drugs Control Administration with a copy of information received in this respect or copy of complant and other documents and request him to isisue /lecessa4/ instructions to the Drug lnspector or Ass/stanf Director concerned. (9) Where, in any cliruc or hospital or nursing home or other institution or place where un-qualified persons or quacks are found practicing modern system or Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine, criminal proceedings wi bb initiated by making a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned as per Section 22 of the Act. (10) Where it is found that the Station House Officer has not acted upon the complaint_petition of the loynci!, the Chairman, ApMC who may thinks ftt, instruct the Registrar to fumish the informaiion togethir with other documents on record O me Superintiiieit _ of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub_Divisionat - -+olice Officer with a request to nstruct the Stattion t l1 Ii fll,J ),io. I:1808 ol l02i House Officer to initiate accordance with the Law. appropriate action i1 15 A conjoint perusal of Rule-8(9) and 8(10) of the lules would reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a cont rlaint as per Section 22 o'f the TIVPR Act. ln the present coSe, th,r complaint is lodged by the Vigilance Officer of Telangana Medical O runcil, which is not in consonance with Sub-Rules (9) and (10) of l:ule-8 of the Rule s.

16. But, under Section 54 of NMCA, no Cour shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint ir vriting by an officer authorized by the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or a State Medical Council. Thus :has to be a complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is r efined under Sectron 2(d)of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

2. Definitions - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) "Complaint" means any allegation made : ally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to hi; taking action under this Code, that some person, a rether known or unknown, has committed an offen e, but does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodg-.d before the competent Court by the authorized officer and it does not include a \i : I I j I t2 FJ'ID.J Crl P.No.14808 o1'2025 police officer. ln the present case, the complaint is filed before the station House officer by the Vigirance officer of the State tvedical Council. Under Section 54 of the NMCA, an officer authorized by the State ltledical Council can file the complaint. Thus, the officer authorized by the State Medical Council has to file the complaint before the concerned Court. 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 g, g and 1O of Rule B of the Rules empowers the Registrar to initiate the criminal proceedings by making a complaint to the Station House Officer and when the Station House Officer does not act upon the same, he shall furnjsh the information along with other documents to the Superintendent of Police to instruct the Station House Officer to initiate appropriate action. As per Section 54 of the NMCA, an authorized person under the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or the State Medical Council can initiate the proceedings. Thus, the Registrar is competent to initiate the proceedings i.e., he can file a complaint, but it has to be made in writing before the concerned Court. l3 El I).J Crl l' \o 14808 of2r)2i

19. ln the present case, the Vigilance Officer he; filed the complaint before the Station House Officer. Hence, rt , Court can take cognizance of the said complaint. Therefore, cc,r trnuation of proceedings in the present case against the petitione'is abuse of process of law.

20. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.'182 of 1025 on the file of Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad, are he'r by quashed against the petitioner herein. However, it is made ,::ar that the authorized officer is at liberty to initiate criminal proce: lings strictly in accordance with law i.e., in accordance with Secli ,n 54 of the NMCA 21 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of ltliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal 'tand closed. SD/. I, BHAVANI SWAMY ASSI! TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -:f SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderaba i. 2. The Station House Officer, Gandhinagar Police Station, iyderabad 3. One CC to Sri. B.Vamshidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC;] 4. One CC to Sri. Sama Sandeep Reddy, Advocate [OPU., 5. One One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for tl- < State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies PSI(Sa \P HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 I ORDER CRLP.No.14808 of 2025 ( i- ,-) () 2 2 t;C, 2P5 ) t a- ,-i' DISPOSED OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIO { 'v(