Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harichandra Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
1 CRR-2201-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2201 of 2025
HARICHANDRA AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Nema - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the case has been heard
finally.
This criminal revision has been filed to challenge the impugned
judgment dated 25.04.2025 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.98/2024 by the
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, whereby the conviction and
sentence of petitioner under Section 8(a)(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Upcharyagriha Tatha Rajopchar Sambandi Sthapanaye (Ragistrikaran Tatha
Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "the Act") and Section 24 of the
Madhya Pradesh Medical Council Act, 1987 were upheld and the judgment
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, in RCT No.928/2017
dated 19.7.2024 was confirmed.
2. The facts of the case are that on 23.9.2017 at around 1:30 p.m. District
Level Squad consisting of Dr. A. K. Tiwari, Chief Health & Medical Officer,
Naib Tahsildar and others inspected the clinic and pathology centre under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
2 CRR-2201-2025
name and style of Muskan Clinic and Pathology Centre run by the petitioner
at Moraha "T" Junction (Tiraha), Satai Road, Chhatarpur; many allopathic
medicines were recovered from that clinic which was being run without any
registration; it was also found that petitioner, who was running this centre,
was not having any decree or diploma to practice medicine nor was
possessing any licence; on the basis of written complaint, an FIR was
registered against the petitioner and the matter was investigated. The trial
followed after the filing of charge-sheet and petitioner was convicted and
sentenced by the trial court; he, though, preferred an appeal but that too was
dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated; he had studied electro-
homoeopathy science and was duly issued a certificate for practicing
medicine under that science; no allopathic medicines were recovered from
the work place of petitioner; the alleged seizure has not been proved by
testimony of any independent witness and only interested witnesses have
supported the prosecution case; no signatures of the people of locality were
obtained to suggest that seizure of any illegal commodity was made from the
petitioner; there are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in
the statements of interested prosecution witnesses. In the light of this, a
request has been made to allow the criminal revision and acquit the
petitioner.
4. State has opposed this criminal revision claiming that the conviction of
petitioner by the two courts below and the sentence awarded to him under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
3 CRR-2201-2025
those judgments are just and legitimate and, therefore, no interference is
warranted by this Court.
5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and records of both the
courts below have been perused.
6. To prove its case prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Dr.
Sharad Chourasia (PW-1), Devendra Kumar Jain (PW-2), Jagdish Chandra
Awasthi (PW-3), Anoop Kumar Tripathi (PW-4), Pushpendra Bajpai (PW-
5) and Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-6), who all were the members of a raiding party
which on 23.09.2017 at around 01:30 p.m. had a raid on the clinic run by
petitioner in the name of Muskan Clinic and Pathology Centre at Satai Road,
Chhatarpur. According to prosecution, this team found that petitioner did not
have his clinic registered under Section 3 of the Act, nor did he have any
degree or diploma in regard to practicing medicine. Admittedly, petitioner
had shown his registration certificate issued under the electro-homoeopathic
branch of alternative medicines, but according to prosecution raiding party
found many allopathic medicines syrups, injections etc. and a pathology
centre being run from that clinic without any legal authority.
7. Petitioner has not challenged the fact that he was running a clinic under
the name of Muskan Pathology, but he has seriously disputed the fact that
any allopathic medicines were found in that clinic or any pathological
laboratory was being run from that premises. Petitioner has examined
himself as a witness before the trial Court and testifying as DW-1 he has
proved his registration issued to practice in electro-homoeopathy branch. He
claims that he runs the clinic but at the time of raid, there were no allopathic
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
4 CRR-2201-2025
medicines nor was there any patient in the clinic. It is further claimed that his
degree under B.E.M.S. and also his registration was shown to the raiding
party, which after being satisfied left the premises. It is specifically claimed
that no allopathic medicines were seized from that premises and only upon
instigation of his competitor, the raiding party later got a false FIR registered
against him.
8. In the backdrop of these rival submissions and also having the FIR
registered against petitioner into consideration, it is to be examined whether
petitioner was authorized to run the clinic without securing any registration
certificate. Section 3 of "the Act" reads as under:-
"no person shall open, keep or carry on a nursing home or a
clinical establishment without being registered in respect thereof
and except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence
granted therefor."
9. Petitioner is claiming exemption from this requirement of registration in
the light of circular issued by Directorate of Health Services M.P. bearing
No.आ शा / सेल-6 एफ/2011/1084 Bhopal dated 26.08.2011 in which
judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in certain writ petitions have
been referred to and it has been clarified in page No.3 of that circular that
clinics under electro-homeopathy/ alternative medicines need not to be
registered under the aforesaid Act and no proceeding shall be initiated under
Section 8 of said Act against such unregistered clinics. The above referred
judgment of co-ordinate Bench was delivered on 19.03.1999 in W.P.
No.502/1999 Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
connected petitions holding that practice in alternate system of medicine is
not regulated by any established law or statute.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
5 CRR-2201-2025
10. The foregoing discussion on the legal aspect of the problem makes it
clear that if petitioner was running a clinic in relation to his practice under
electro-homeopathic branch, he was not required under law to obtain any
registration certificate/licence for that clinic. Prosecution is contesting that
petitioner was not running his clinic for the electro-homeopathy field of
medicine as some allopathic medicines, were recovered from that clinic.
Interestingly, statements of prosecution witnesses suggest that no patient was
found in the clinic when the raid was held, nor any prescription scribed by
petitioner or any letter head used by him was recovered from the spot.
Regarding the medicines recovered from spot Dr. Sharad Chourasia (PW-1)
has admitted that these were the medicines commonly found in a first aid kit.
11. The medicines allegedly recovered from spot were important and
relevant evidence to prove the charges but they were not produced in
evidence. Petitioner has challenged the recovery of any such medicines;
therefore, it was incumbent upon prosecution to place the physical evidence
before the trial Court, so that facts were not left for speculation but could be
decided with certainty. There is no explanation on record why the seized
medicines and also the sealed container used for their custody were not
produced in evidence.
12. From above, it is reflected that despite raiding the clinic of petitioner,
the raiding team could not collect any incriminating article except alleged
recovery of some allopathic medicines but for that no physical evidence is
available on record to show the seizure and that the medicine were kept on
spot in a sealed container. If petitioner was engaged in practicing medicine
under allopathic branch, there would have been innumerable pieces of other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
6 CRR-2201-2025
evidence to establish his guilt, but here we have none. It is being claimed that
petitioner was running a pathological lab in that clinic, but evidence is
deficient even on this aspect. No prosecution witness has established that
there were any apparatus or accessory items in that clinic suggesting that a
pathological lab was being run there. Prosecution witnesses are also silent to
prove fact that any of the medicines allegedly recovered from the clinic had
any pathological usage.
13. The analysis of facts brings this Court to the conclusion that petitioner
was though running a clinic which was inspected by the raiding party on the
date and time of the incident, but prosecution has not been able to prove that
any allopathic medicine was recovered from that clinic in the presence of
petitioner and he was running his practice there in allopathic medicine.
Prosecution has also not been able to establish that any pathological lab was
being run by petitioner in that clinic. It has already been discussed that under
the circular dated 26.08.2011, petitioner was not required to obtain
registration certificate of his clinic for practicing electro-homeopathy.
Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner has not
violated any conditions of Section 3 of the Act and therefore, he could not
have been convicted under Section 8(a)(i) of that Act. His conviction under
that provision is therefore set aside.
14. Section 24 of The Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam,
1987 provides that :-
"If any person whose name is not enrolled on the State Medical
Register, practices as a registered medical practitioner, he shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend two three years and with fine which may extend to Five
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
7 CRR-2201-2025
Thousand Rupees."
15. This provision applies to a person practicing as registered medical
practitioner, though he is not enrolled on state medical register as such, but
in the facts of the present case, no piece of evidence has been brought on
record to show that petitioner was at any point of time projecting himself as
registered medical practitioner or giving any medical advice under that
pretence. Simply on the basis of alleged recovery of allopathic medicines, it
cannot be established that petitioner was impersonating as registered medical
practitioner, more so, when this alleged recovery has not been established.
The evidence led by prosecution is completely silent on this simple
proposition that title of doctor was being used by practitioner. Thus, neither
tangibly nor intangibly, prosecution has been able to establish that petitioner
was acting under the pretence of registered medical practitioner and this
conclusion leads to the finding that no offence as described in Section 24 of
The Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 was committed
by the petitioner. Therefore, under this count also he deserves the finding of
acquittal.
16. On the wholesome analysis of facts and law, this revision petition is
allowed and setting aside the conviction and sentence of petitioner under
Section 8(a)(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rajopchar
Sambandi Sthapanaye (Ragistrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973
and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council Act, 1987, petitioner
is acquitted of all charges.
17. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed . Petitioner is in custody.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38110
8 CRR-2201-2025
He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
18. The fine amount deposited by the petitioner, if any, be refunded to him.
19. Let copies of this order along with its records be send to the courts
below for information and necessary compliance. A copy of this order be
also send to the concerned jail authority for ensuring immediate action.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
