Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 646 of 2014. Case: Lissy Vs State of Kerala. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 646 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Rajeev and K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Advs. and For Respondents: R. Githesh, Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | P. Ubaid, J. |
| Issue | Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 15(2), 15(3); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120(B), 419, 420 |
| Judgement Date | September 02, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Order:
P. Ubaid, J.
-
The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 327 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Thamarassery. She is a doctor by profession and she has her own hospital by name 'Alphonsa Hospital' at Puthuppady. On 1.2.2012, the police party led by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thamarassery conducted a raid in the said hospital on a complaint that the 3rd accused has appointed a quack in her hospital. The police found the 1st accused Shaji in the said hospital as a doctor, and on verification, the police could find that he does not have any qualification whatever to practice as doctor. In such a situation, the police registered a crime suo motu against the said Shaji. During investigation, the 2nd accused Firoskhan was arraigned as the person who introduced the 1st accused to the 3rd accused as the qualified doctor, and the 3rd accused (petitioner herein) was arraigned on the allegation that she appointed the 1st accused without verifying his qualifications or, she appointed him with the full knowledge that he is not a qualified doctor. After investigation, the police submitted final report in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thamarassery under Sections 120(B), 419 and 420 I.P.C. under Sections 38 and 39 of Travancore Medical Practitioners Act, and under Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act. All the accused including the petitioner herein entered appearance and made arguments on the question of charge.
-
After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the three accused under Sections 120(B), 419 and 420 I.P.C., under Sections 38 and 39 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, and also under Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act. All the three accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Now the 3rd accused has brought this revision challenging the legality of the charge framed by the trial court.
-
On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find that charge in this case was not properly framed by the court below. I find that the matter requires reconsideration, for a proper and legal charge. Practice of medicine without qualification will not by itself attract the offence of cheating punishable under Section 419 or under Section 420 I.P.C. It is not known who was stated or whether any one had made complaint of cheating. Anyway, let the matter be properly and legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial