Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Tamanna Baburao Kurbetti, who was originally convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadhinglaj, in R.C.C. No. 17 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The respondent was alleged to have practiced medicine without being a registered medical practitioner. The trial court convicted her, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2000, set aside the conviction and acquitted her on 25th June 2001. The State then filed the present appeal. The core legal issue was whether the respondent's practice fell within the exception under Section 37 of the Act, which allows a person to practice medicine in a rural area if they had commenced practice in that village prior to the date on which a registered practitioner under the Bombay Medical Act, 1912 or the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938 started practicing in that village. The appellate court had found that the respondent practiced in a rural area and that she had commenced practice before any registered practitioner began practicing in that village, thus bringing her within the protective ambit of Section 37. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the appellate court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The High Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is limited; the appellate court's view, if plausible, should not be disturbed. The High Court also observed that the State failed to demonstrate any perversity in the appellate court's reasoning. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that the exception under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 protects persons practicing medicine in rural areas who commenced practice before the arrival of a registered practitioner, and that acquittals based on such a plausible view should not be lightly interfered with.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Medical Practice - Unregistered Practice - Section 33(2) read with Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 - The respondent was convicted by the trial court for practicing medicine without registration, but the appellate court acquitted her on the ground that she practiced in a rural area and had commenced practice before any registered practitioner started practicing in that village, thus falling within the exception under Section 37 of the Act. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no perversity in the appellate court's reasoning. (Paras 1-8) B) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the appellate court's conclusion that the respondent was protected under Section 37 was a plausible view, and the High Court declined to substitute its own view. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, who practiced medicine in a rural area without registration, is protected under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, and whether the acquittal by the appellate court was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent. The court found no perversity in the appellate court's reasoning that the respondent was protected under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
Law Points
- Section 37 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act
- 1961 provides a saving clause for persons practicing medicine in rural areas who commenced practice before a registered practitioner started practicing in that village
- Section 33(2) penalizes unregistered practice but is subject to Section 37 exception
