Balwan vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 705 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

219
                                                  CRA-S-2123-SB-2016
                                            Date of decision: 13.01.2023


Dr. Balwan                                                   .....Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Haryana                                            .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL


Present :    Mr. Sandeep Kumar Goyat, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

                                   ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The appellant is impugning the order dated 04.02.2016

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which after

being held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28

of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') was

convicted and ordered to be released on probation of good conduct.

Learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the

judgment and order of sentence, has vehemently argued that the Trial

Court had gravely erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant had

been awarded a degree of Ayurved Ratna by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad vide certificate Ex.D7 and subsequently he was registered as

a Vaid with effect from 03.01.1993 by the State Council of Ayurvedic

and Unani Medicines, Bihar vide certificate Ex.D8. He further submits

that at the time of the alleged raid which was carried out by the Drugs

Control Officer, Hisar-II and the Medical Officer, PHC, Thurana, no

1 of 4

patient was present and no record much less of any person having

purchased any drugs from the appellant had surfaced. Learned counsel

has submitted that in the circumstances, the impugned judgment and

order deserved to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted of the charges

framed against him. In support of his submissions, he has placed

reliance upon Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana : (1986) 1 RCR

(Criminal) 532.

Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and

submissions made by the counsel opposite, has submitted that the

appellant was not eligible to practice the modern system of medicine

much less distribute or prescribe allopathic drugs to his patients as he

was not registered under the provisions of Section 2(ee) of the Act.

Learned State counsel still further submitted that the appellant in form

16 had himself admitted to having stocked and prescribed allopathic

medicines without any licence to sell them. It has vehemently been

prayed that in the circumstances, the findings recorded by the Trial

Court on the basis of evidence led could not be said to be perverse so as

to warrant interference of this Court. Learned State counsel has place

reliance upon Sarwan Singh Dadri Vs. State of Punjab and others :

1987 AIR (Punjab) 81 and State of Punjab Vs. Lashkar Singh :

1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 185.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record.

As per the complaint filed by the Drugs Control Officer,

Hisar-II on 03.10.2009 a raid was conducted on the clinic/shop of the

appellant situated at VPO Thurana, District Hisar on the basis of a

2 of 4

secret information. Dr. Rajesh Bhoria, Medical Officer, PHC, Thurana

was also part of the raiding party. During search, the appellant was

found to have stocked 20 types of different allopathic drugs for sale and

distribution. The appellant also failed to produce any valid drug licence

authorizing him to stock those allopathic drugs for sale and distribution.

The raid was carried in the presence of a public witness Ram Niwas.

Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded and he signed

qua the seizure of drugs on Form 16. After following the other requisite

formalities a notice was issued by the complainant to the appellant on

03.10.2009, which was never replied to by the appellant. A perusal of

the evidence on record reveals that the appellant was holder of a degree

of Ayurved Ratna awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad

(Ex.D7) only, however, admittedly and not disputed by the appellant

himself, he was not registered to practice modern system of medicines

for the purpose of the Act.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S.

Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others : AIR 2010

SC 2221, has categorically held that anyone who has acquired

certificate/degree or diploma from Hindia Sahitya Sammelan Prayag

after 1967, would not be eligible to practice any field of medicine.

Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held on the basis of the evidence

led that the appellant was not authorised to stock the medicines which

were recovered from his shop at the time of raid in question. The case

law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant would be of no

avail to the appellant as the same is distinguishable on the facts and

circumstances of the case in question. In the light of the

3 of 4

aforementioned, no interference is warranted in the impugned order

dated 04.02.2016.

Dismissed.

13.01.2023                                 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay                                             JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                 4 of 4