Dr. Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh v. State of Maharashtra

2 aba-28-26.odtpersons mentioned in the FIR have illegally extracted anamount of Rs.48,53,000/- from him.4.The summary of the complaint filed byRoshan Kule is that he was entangled in a debt trap forthe period from 2021-2024 and harassed for the same byfour persons named in the FIR. By charging excess rate ofinterest, they recovered an amount of Rs.48,53,000/-.For that purpose, he had not only transferred hisagricultural land and Tractor, but also sold his left kidneyat Cambodia. Those four persons along with two otherpersons also assaulted him by means of an iron rod. 5.On his complaint, initially the offences underSections 387, 342, 294, 506, 120B and 326 of the IPCapart from Sections 39 and 44 of the MaharashtraMoney-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 came to beregistered. During the course of investigation, the Policearrested one Ramkrushna @ Krishna Mallesh Sunchu,who is the kingpin in removing the kidney ofcomplainant Roshan Kule. During his interrogation, itwas revealed that there is an ongoing illegal humanorgan trafficking racket. Not only the complainant, butthere are various other persons whose organs have beenremoved and transplanted into the bodies of otherpatients illegally. There are various Hospitals and Doctorsinvolved in this illegal human organ trafficking racket.6.During inspection of the mobile phone of Dr.Ramkrushna Mallesh Sunchu, it was revealed that thereRR Jaiswal 3 aba-28-26.odtare various communications between the patients, donorsas well as the present applicant, including financialtransactions pertaining to kidney transplant surgery. Theallegation against the present applicant is that he used toperform surgeries for removing and transplanting humanorgans illegally. Therefore, the Police started searchingthe applicant. Feeling apprehension of his arrest, theapplicant approached this Court for grant of anticipatorybail.7.Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for theapplicant submitted that the applicant is a well-knownliver transplant Doctor based in Delhi. He has nothing todo with the crime and the allegations against him arethat he conducted surgeries for removal of the organsand transplanted the same into the bodies of otherpatient for money. According to him, he has not directlydealt with any of the victims, so there is nothing onrecord to suggest that the applicant exploited the victimsfrom whose bodies, the organs were removed for thepurpose of recruitment, transport, harbour, transfer byusing any of the modes mentioned in Section 143 of theBNS. Therefore, the Police is unnecessarily trying toconnect the applicant with this crime.8.Learned counsel for the applicant submittedthat at the most, if any irregularity has been committedby the applicant while performing surgeries, that will begoverned by the provisions of the THOT Act. TheRR Jaiswal 4 aba-28-26.odtapplicant at the most, can be said to have not intimatedor failed to obtain permission from the CompetentAuthority under the THOT Act before performing thesurgeries for transplantation. Therefore, he will be liableonly for breach of the provisions of the THOT Act. Hestrenuously submitted that the mechanism to deal withsuch acts on the part of a Doctor has been providedunder the THOT Act itself. Rather, if any offence iscommitted under Sections 18, 19 or 20 of the THOT Act,a complaint can be entertained only if it is filed by theappropriate authority under the THOT Act or any officerauthorized on behalf of the Central Government/ StateGovernment or by a person, after giving notice of 60 daysto the appropriate authority to make such complaint.However, in the present case, the appropriate authorityunder the THOT Act has not filed any complaint beforeany of the Courts and therefore, cognizance taken by thePolice for breach of the provisions under the THOT Act isnot permissible.9.Lastly, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for theapplicant submitted that even if it is presumed that theoffence under Section 143 of the BNS i.e. so called‘human trafficking’ is attracted to the alleged acts of theoffenders including the applicant, but the THOT Actbeing a special statue, Section 4 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (CrPC) authorizing investigation intocognizable offences may not be applicable, since itspecifically provides that the offence under any other lawRR Jaiswal 5 aba-28-26.odtshall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwisedealt with subject to any enactment for the time being inforce, regulating such offence.10.The sum and substance of the argument ofthe learned counsel for the applicant is that the THOTAct is a special enactment and cognizance of the offenceunder the THOT Act cannot be taken on a Police reportbut can only be taken on the complaint filed by theCompetent Authority. In absence of the complaint by theCompetent Authority, registration of the offence itself iswithout jurisdiction and therefore, all consequentialactions and acts are also vitiated.11.In addition to the above, Mr. Sirpurkarvehemently submitted that the applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation and nothing is required to beseized from him. Therefore, custodial interrogation of theapplicant may not be required. According to him, theapplicant is a renowned Doctor and there is a bleakchance of his fleeing from justice. Therefore, he prayedfor protection by way of anticipatory bail.12.Mr. D. V. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocateand Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on thehand, vehemently objected the application on the groundthat an illegal human organ trafficking racket is activewherein, not only the organs of various persons areremoved and transplanted by conducting illegalsurgeries. According to him, there is sufficient materialRR Jaiswal 6 aba-28-26.odtavailable on record in the form of Whatsapp chatsbetween arrested accused Dr. Ramkrushna Sunchu andthe present applicant, which speaks in many words thatthere are various financial transactions between theapplicant and Dr. Ramkrushna Sunchu for conductingthose illegal surgeries. The present applicant was verywell aware that he is performing surgeries for illegalhuman organ trafficking racket. Therefore, there is morethan sufficient material to connect the applicant with thecrime. According to him, custodial interrogation of theapplicant is necessary to bust the illegal human organtrafficking racket.13.On the legal aspect of attracting theprovisions of the THOT Act vis-a-vis Section 143 of theBNS, Mr. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate submittedthat if one act is punishable under two different statutes,then there is no bar to the trial of an offender under twodifferent enactments. The bar is only to punishment ofthe offender twice for the same offence. According tohim, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permitsprosecution of an offender under two different Acts, ifthe ingredients of the provisions are specific. There is nospecific section in the THOT Act which gives an over-riding effect to the provisions of the THOT Act over theBNS/IPC. The purpose and object of the specialenactment was to regulate removal, storage andtransplantation of human organs and tissues andprevention of commercial dealings in human organs andRR Jaiswal 7 aba-28-26.odttissues. Whereas, Section 143 of the BNS (Section 370 ofthe IPC) operates in a totally different field altogetherand the purpose of the THOT Act is to preventexploitation of a person by inducement for the purpose ofremoval of organs which is covered under Section 143 ofthe BNS and the consent of the victim is immaterial.14.According to him, the ingredients ofunauthorized human transplantation of organs i.e.human trafficking are not covered by the provisions ofthe THOT Act and therefore, irrespective of Section 22which provides cognizance only on the complaint of theappropriate authority, the Police can investigate theoffence punishable under Section 143 of the BNS.According to him, even if one ingredient of the offenceunder IPC is missing in the special Act, the IPC Sectionwill not be excluded and can still be resorted.15.To appreciate the argument of the learnedcounsels for the respective parties, it will be appropriateto discuss the provisions of the THOT Act, a special Actwhich has been enacted for regulation of removal,storage and transplantation of human organs and tissuesfor therapeutic purposes and for the prevention ofcommercial dealings in human organs and tissues and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Sections 9, 13, 18, 19, 20 and 22 are relevant forconsideration of the issue involved in this matter.Therefore, they are reproduced hereunder:-RR Jaiswal 8 aba-28-26.odt“9. Restrictions on removal and transplantation of humanorgans or tissues or both.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), nohuman organ or tissue or both removed from the body of adonor before his death shall be transplanted into arecipient unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient.(1A) Where the donor or the recipient being near relative isa foreign national, prior approval of the AuthorisationCommittee shall be required before removing ortransplanting human organ or tissue or both:Provided that the Authorisation Committee shall notapprove such removal or transplantation if the recipient is aforeign national and the donor is an Indian national unlessthey are near relatives.(1B) No human organs or tissues or both shall be removedfrom the body of a minor before his death for the purposeof transplantation except in the manner as may beprescribed.(1C) No human organs or tissues or both shall be removedfrom the body of a mentally challenge person before hisdeath for the purpose of transplantation.Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,—(i) the expression “mentally challenged person” includes aperson with mental illness or mental retardation, as thecase may be;(ii) the expression “mental illness” includes dementia,schizophrenia and such other mental condition that makesa person intellectually disables;(iii) the expression “mental retardation” shall have thesame meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of section 2 ofthe Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of1996).(2) Where any donor authorises the removal of any of hishuman organs or tissues or both after his death under sub-section (2) of section 3 or any person competent orempowered to give authority for the removal of any humanorgan or tissue or both from the body of any deceasedperson authorises such removal, the human organ or tissueor both may be removed and transplanted into the body ofany recipient who may be in need of such 1[human organor tissue or both.RR Jaiswal 9 aba-28-26.odt(3) If any donor authorises the removal of any of hishuman organs or tissues or both] before his death undersub-section (1) of section 3 for transplantation into thebody of such recipient, not being a near relative, as isspecified by the donor by reason of affection or attachmenttowards the recipient or for any other special reasons, suchhuman organ or tissue or both] shall not be removed andtransplanted without the prior approval of theAuthorisation Committee.(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(3), where—(a) any donor has agreed to make a donation of his humanorgan or tissue or both before his death to a recipient, whois his near relative, but such donor is not compatiblebiologically as a donor for the recipient; and(b) the second donor has agreed to make a donation of hishuman organ or tissue or both before his death to suchrecipient, who is his near relative, but such donor is notcompatible biologically as a donor for such recipient; then(c) the first donor who is compatible biologically as a donorfor the second recipient and the second donor is compatiblebiologically as a donor of a human organ or tissue or bothfor the first recipient and both donors and both recipientsin the aforesaid group of donor and recipient have enteredinto a single agreement to donate and receive such humanorgan or tissue or both according to such biologicalcompatibility in the group, the removal and transplantationof the human organ or tissue or both, as per the agreementreferred to above, shall not be done without prior approvalof the Authorisation Committee.(4) (a) The composition of the Authorisation Committeeshall be such as may be prescribed by the CentralGovernment from time to time.(b) The State Government and the Union territories shallconstitute, by notification, one or more AuthorisationCommittee consisting of such members as may benominated by the State Government and the Unionterritories on such terms and conditions as may be specifiedin the notification for the purposes of this section.(5) On an application jointly made, in such form and insuch manner as may be prescribed, by the donor and therecipient, the Authorisation Committee shall, after holdingan inquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicantshave complied with all the requirements of this Act and tileRR Jaiswal 10 aba-28-26.odtrules made thereunder, grant to the applicants approval forthe removal and transplantation of the human organ.(6) If, after the inquiry and after giving an opportunity tothe applicants of being heard, the Authorisation Committeeis satisfied that the applicants have not complied with therequirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder, itshall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject theapplication for approval.* * * *13. Appropriate Authority.—(1) The Central Governmentshall appoint, by notification, one or more officers asAppropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories forthe purposes of this Act.(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification,one or more officers as Appropriate Authorities for thepurposes of this Act.(3) The Appropriate Authority shall perform the followingfunctions, namely:—(i) to grant registration under sub-section (1) of section 15or renew registration under sub-section (3) of that section;(ii) to suspend or cancel registration under sub-section (2)of section 16;(iii) to enforce such standards, as may be prescribed,—(A) for hospitals engaged in the removal, storage ortransplantation of any human organ:(B) for Tissue Banks engaged in recovery, screening,testing, processing, storage and distribution of tissues;(iv) to investigate any complaint of breach of any of theprovisions of this Act or any of the rules made thereunderand take appropriate action;(iva) to inspect Tissue Banks periodically;(v) to inspect hospitals periodically for examination of thequality of transplantation and the follow-up medical care topersons who have undergone transplantation and personsfrom whom organs are removed; andRR Jaiswal 11 aba-28-26.odt(vi) to undertake such other measures as may beprescribed.* * * *18. Punishment for removal of human organ withoutauthority.—(1) Any person who renders his services to or at anyhospital and who, for purposes of transplantation,conducts, associates with, or helps in any manner in, theremoval of any human organ without authority, shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to ten years and with fine which may extend totwenty lakh rupees.(2) Where any person convicted under sub-section (1) is aregistered medical practitioner, his name shall be reportedby the Appropriate Authority to the respective StateMedical Council for taking necessary action including theremoval of his name from the register of the Council for aperiod of three years for the first offence and permanentlyfor the subsequent offence.(3) Any person who renders his services to or at anyhospital and who conducts, or associates with or helps inany manner in the removal of human tissue withoutauthority, shall be punishable withimprisonment for a term which may extend to three yearsand with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.* * * *19. Punishment for commercial dealings in human organs.—Whoever—(a) makes or receives any payment for the supply of, or foran offer to supply, any human organ;(b) seeks to find a person willing to supply for payment anyhuman organ;(c) offers to supply any human organ for payment; or(d) initiates or negotiates any arrangement involving themaking of any payment for the supplyof, or for an offer to supply, any human organ;(e) takes part in the management or control of a body ofpersons, whether a society, firm or company, whoseRR Jaiswal 12 aba-28-26.odtactivities consist of or include the initiation or negotiationof any arrangement referred to in clause (d); or(f) publishes or distributes or causes to be published ordistributed any advertisement,—(a) inviting persons to supply for payment of any humanorgan;(b) offering to supply any human organ for payment; or (c) indicating that the advertiser is willing to initiate ornegotiate any arrangement referred to in clause (d);(g) abets in the preparation or submission of falsedocuments including giving false affidavits to establish thatthe donor is making the donation of the human organs, as anear relative or by reason of affection or attachmenttowards the recipient, shall be punishable withimprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fiveyears but which may extend to ten years and shall be liableto fine which shall not be less than twenty lakh rupees butmay extend to one crore rupees.20. Punishment for contravention of any other provision ofthis Act.—Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act orany rule made, or any condition of the registration granted,thereunder for which no punishment is separately providedin this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for aterm which may extend to five years or with fine whichmay extend to twenty lakh rupees.* * * *22. Cognizance of offences.—(1) No court shall takecognizance of an offence under this Act except on acomplaint made by—(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officerauthorised in this behalf by the Central Government or theState Government or, as the case may be, the AppropriateAuthority; or;(b) a person who has given notice of not less than sixtydays, in such manner as may be prescribed, to theAppropriate Authority concerned, of the alleged offenceand of his intention to make a complaint to the court.RR Jaiswal 13 aba-28-26.odt(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrateor a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try anyoffence punishable under this Act.(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) ofsub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person,direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies ofthe relevant records in its possession to such person.”16. Section 13 of the THOT Act deals withappointment of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ and Section13B thereof provides powers of the ‘AppropriateAuthority’ i.e. the Appropriate Authority shall, for thepurpose of this Act, have all the powers of a Civil Courttrying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.17. Section 13(iv) of the THOT Act provides forthe ‘Appropriate Authority’ to investigate any complaintof breach of any of the provisions of the Act or any of therules made thereunder and take appropriate action. Thesaid provisions of the said Act, if read with the provisionsof Section 4(2) of the CrPC and other relevant provisionsquoted above i.e. the definition of complaint, informationetc., the Court finds that it is the Appropriate Authorityappointed under the THOT Act who can to investigateinto the provisions of the Act. Breach of the provisions ofthe Act have been made punishable under Sections 19and 19A thereof.18. As per the provisions of Section 22 of theTHOT Act, the cognizance of an offence can only be on acomplaint made by the Appropriate Authority or anyofficer authorised in this behalf. This takes me to SectionRR Jaiswal 14 aba-28-26.odt4 of the CrPC (Section 4 of the the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023) which is reproducedhereunder:-“4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and otherlaws.—(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, andotherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinaftercontained.(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated,inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according tothe same provisions, but subject to any enactment for thetime being in force regulating the manner of place ofinvestigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealingwith such offences.”19.Thus, ordinarily the offence shall beinvestigated, inquired into and tried as per the provisionsof the Code. However, if the special enactment providesthe manner or place of investigating, inquiring into,trying or otherwise dealing with such offence, then theoffence will be investigated, inquired into and tried asper the special statute.20. At this juncture, it will be appropriate torefer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofJeewan Kumar Raut & Another VS. Central Bureau ofInvestigating [(2009) 7 SCC 526] relied upon by thelearned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as thelearned Public Prosecutor, wherein the Hon’ble ApexCourt after considering Section 4 of the CrPC and Section22 of the THOT in identical facts, has observed in paranos. 19 to 27 as under:-RR Jaiswal 15 aba-28-26.odt19. TOHO is a special Act. It deals with the subjectsmentioned therein, viz. Offences relating to removal ofhuman organs, etc. Having regard to the importance of thesubject only, enactment of the said regulatory statute wasimperative.20. TOHO provides for appointment of an appropriateauthority to deal with the matters specified in sub-section(3) of Section 13 thereof. By reason of the aforementionedprovision, an appropriate authority has specifically beenauthorised inter alia to investigate any complaint of thebreach of any of the provisions of TOHO or any of the rulesmade thereunder and take appropriate action. Theappropriate authority, subject to exceptions provided for inTOHO, thus, is only authorised to investigate cases ofbreach of any of the provisions thereof, whether penal orotherwise.21. Ordinarily, any person can set the criminal law inmotion. Parliament and the State Legislatures, however,keeping in view the sensitivity and/or importance of thesubject, have carved out specific areas where violations ofany of the provisions of a special statute like TOHO can bedealt with only by the authorities specified therein. The FIRlodged before the officer in charge of Gurgaon PoliceStation was by way of information. It disclosed not onlycommission of an offence under TOHO but also undervarious provisions of the Penal Code. The officer in chargeof the police station, however, was not authorised by theappropriate Government to deal with the matter in relationto TOHO; but, the respondent was. In that view of thematter, the investigation of the said complaint was handedover to it.22. TOHO being a special statute, Section 4 of the Code,which ordinarily would be applicable for investigation intoa cognizable offence or the other provisions, may not beapplicable. Section 4 provides for investigation, inquiry,trial, etc. according to the provisions of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 4, however, specifically provides thatoffences under any other law shall be investigated, inquiredinto, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the sameprovisions, but subject to any enactment for the time beingin force regulating the manner or place of investigating,inquiring into, tried or otherwise dealing with suchoffences.23. TOHO being a special Act and the matter relating todealing with offences thereunder having been regulated byreason of the provisions thereof, there cannot be anyRR Jaiswal 16 aba-28-26.odtmanner of doubt whatsoever that the same shall prevailover the provisions of the Code. The investigation in termsof Section 13(3) (iv) of TOHO, thus, must be conducted byan authorised officer. Nobody else could do it. For theaforementioned reasons, the officer in charge of GurgaonPolice Station had no other option but to hand over theinvestigation to the appropriate authority.24. The respondent has been constituted under the DelhiSpecial Police Establishment Act, 1946. In terms of theprovisions of the said Act, the authorities specified thereincould make investigation in connection with a complaint.The mode and manner in which the investigation could becarried out have been laid down in the Act and/or theManual framed thereunder. It is for the aforementionedreason, upon receipt of the complaint from the officer incharge of Gurgaon Police Station, it presumably havingmade a preliminary inquiry, lodged the FIR. Only because itlodged the FIR and proceeded in terms of the said Act andthe Manual, the same by itself would not mean that all theprovisions of Chapter XII of TOHO vis-à-vis Chapter XVthereof could not be invoked.25. Section 22 of TOHO prohibits taking of cognizanceexcept on a complaint made by an appropriate authority orthe person who had made a complaint earlier to it as laiddown therein. The respondent, although, has all the powersof an investigating agency, it expressly has been statutorilyprohibited from filing a police report. It could file acomplaint petition only as an appropriate authority so as tocomply with the requirements contained in Section 22 ofTOHO. If by reason of the provisions of TOHO, filing of apolice report by necessary implication is necessarilyforbidden, the question of its submitting a report in termsof sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code did not andcould not arise. In other words, if no police report could befiled, sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code was notattracted. 26. It is a well-settled principle of law that if a specialstatute lays down procedures, the ones laid down under thegeneral statutes shall not be followed. In a situation of thisnature, the respondent could carry out investigations inexercise of its authorisation under Section 13(3)(iv) ofTOHO. While doing so, it could exercise such powers whichare otherwise vested in it. But, as it could not file a policereport but a complaint petition only; sub-section (2) ofSection 167 of the Code may not be applicable.RR Jaiswal 17 aba-28-26.odt27. The provisions of the Code, thus, for all intent andpurport, would apply only to an extent till conflict arisesbetween the provisions of the Code and TOHO and as soonas the area of conflict reaches, TOHO shall prevail over theCode. Ordinarily, thus, although in terms of the Code, therespondent upon completion of investigation and uponobtaining remand of the accused from time to time, wasrequired to file a police report, it was precluded from doingso by reason of the provisions contained in Section 22 ofTOHO.21.The decision in the case of State ofMaharashtra and another Vs. Sayyed Hassan SayyedSubhan and others [(2019) 18 SCC 145] has been placedin service by the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein theSupreme Court in para no. 8 has held as under:-“8. In Hat Singh case [(2003) 2 SCC 152] this Courtdiscussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and Section 26 ofthe General Clauses Act to observe that prosecution undertwo different Acts is permissible if the ingredients of theprovisions are satisfied on the same facts. Whileconsidering a dispute about the prosecution of theRespondent therein for offences under the Mines andMinerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 andIndian Penal Code, this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v.Sanjay [(2014) 9 SCC 772] held that there is no bar inprosecuting persons under the Penal Code where theoffences committed by persons are penal and cognizableoffences. A perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act wouldmake it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under theIPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribepenalties. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the HighCourt on the first point.”22.However, in the decision in case of RamnathVs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 3 SCC 502], theSupreme Court in para no. 30 has held as under:-“30. The decision of this Court in the case of SwamiAchyutanand Tirth Vs. Union of India [(2014) 13 SCC 314]does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of theState of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan[(2019) 18 SCC 145], the question of the effect of Section97 FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. TheRR Jaiswal 18 aba-28-26.odtCourt dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concludedthat there could be simultaneous prosecutions, butconviction and sentence can be only in one. Thisproposition is based on what is incorporated in Section 26of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtueof Section 89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisionsof Sections 272 and 273 IPC. Therefore, there will not beany question of simultaneous prosecution under both thestatutes.”Therefore, the decision in the case of SayyedHassan Sayyed Subhan (supra) will not help the learnedPublic Prosecutor.23.The Full Bench of this Court in the case ofAwadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak Vs. State ofMaharashtra [2024 (4) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 708] in para nos. 36and 37 has held as under:-“36. Ex facie, neither section 43 nor section 72 makespunishable an offence as defined therein when it iscommitted by two or more persons by sharing a commonintention, neither is there any other provision in the IT Actwhich would demonstrate the legislature havingcomprehended a situation where these offences arecommitted by sharing a common intention as definedunder section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Independently,even this aspect, in the context of Legal Metrology Act,2009 was considered in Aman Mittal, in 22 Cri. Appln.2562-2019-FB-Ref concluding paragraph (supra). Withrespect, we follow the same line of reasoning. Hence, weanswer this question also in the negative.37. The common thread deducible from various judgmentsof the Supreme Court covering similar issues, where an actis an offence under a special statute having an overridingeffect over the offence covered by the general law likeIndian Penal Code, is that in order to exclude the generallaw or the offence therein, ingredients of the offencedefined under the special statute and the Indian Penal Codewill have to be the same. If even one ingredient of anoffence under the Indian Penal Code is missing in the actwhich has been made punishable under the special statute,the Indian Penal Code section will not be excluded and stillcan be resorted to albeit, the provisions of section 71 of theIndian Penal Code and section 26 of the General ClausesRR Jaiswal 19 aba-28-26.odtAct will have to be borne in mind by the Courts whileimposing the sentences.”24.I have gone through the case-diary. Theallegation against the present applicant which appearsfrom the Whatsapp chats between the applicant and co-accused- Ramkrushna is that the applicant used toconduct surgeries for removal of organs and transplantthe same without approval of the Competent Authorityand used to charge a hefty amount for each surgery. Theallegation against the other accused may be underdifferent Sections of the IPC but, the alleged acts of theapplicant are covered under Sections 18, 19 and 20 ofthe THOT Act. Therefore, the case of Awadhesh KumarParasnath Pathak (supra) will not help the prosecution.25.Rather, in identical facts, the Supreme Courtin the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut (supra) held that theprovisions of the THOT Act will be applicable. Thedecision mentioned above has been followed by theOrissa High Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court inthe cases of Mrs. N. Ratnakumari Vs. State of Odisha andothers [2014 SCC Online Ori 256] and Nurul Ishlam S/o.Abdul Jabbar and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 5775/2024,decided on 26.09.2024) respectively relied by theapplicant.26.Rather, recently the Principal Bench of thisCourt in case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. SureshRR Jaiswal 20 aba-28-26.odtBhai Amruth Bhai Prajapathi (Criminal Application(APPLN) No. 187/2018, decided on 12.07.2022) hasrelied on Section 22 of the THOT Act while confirmingthe order of bail granted by the Sessions Court.27.It is brought to my notice that theInvestigating Officer (IO) has sought permission forprosecuting the applicant under the provisions ofTransplantation of Human Organ and Tissues Act, 1994 .Whether the appropriate authority itself will investigatethe matter or the State/Central Government willauthorize any officer on their behalf, is in their domain.28.In view of the matter, it will be appropriate togrant ad-interim protection to the applicant by imposingcertain stringent conditions till such decision is taken bythe Authority/Government.29.Needless to mention that, the other groundsfor grant/rejection of the anticipatory bail have not beenconsidered. Hence, I proceed to pass the followingorder:-i)Pending the application, in the event of arrestapplicant- Dr. Ravinderpal Singh Jaspal Singh be releasedon bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with onesolvent surety in the like amount in connection withCrime No. 654/2025 registered with Police StationBrahmapuri, Dist. Chandrapur for the offences punishableunder Sections 326, 387, 342, 294, 506, 120B of theIndian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 143(1)(a)(f), 143(2),RR Jaiswal 21 aba-28-26.odt143(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 39and 44 of the Maharashtra Money-lending (Regulation)Act, 2014 and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantationof Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.ii)The applicant shall attend the concernedPolice Station from 02:00 pm to 05:00 pm on 11.02.2026and from 10:00 am to 05:00 pm from 12.02.2026 to16.02.2026.iii)The applicant shall not threaten theprosecution witnesses or tamper with prosecutionevidence and shall co-operate in the investigation.iv)The applicant shall not leave India withoutthe prior permission of the Court and shall surrender hisPassport with the IO.v)The IO present in the Court shall take note ofthis order.30.List the matter on 18.02.2026. (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)RR Jaiswal