BACKGROUND AND PROSECUTION CASE
The High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal revision petition filed by G. K. Bheemappa challenging his conviction under Section 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (KPME Act). The conviction had been recorded by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, and subsequently affirmed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.
The prosecution alleged that the accused was practising allopathic medicine without possessing the necessary qualifications. On 14 August 2013, following information about his alleged medical practice, the designated officer and others visited his residence. During the inspection, certain allopathic medicines were found and seized. The prosecution further alleged that the accused could not produce documents establishing his medical qualifications or registration.
A charge sheet was subsequently filed under Section 19 of the KPME Act. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to establish its case.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The accused contended that the prosecution had failed to establish that he was actually practising allopathic medicine or operating a private medical establishment. It was argued that the evidence, at its highest, established only the possession of certain allopathic medicines. There was no evidence demonstrating that he had examined patients, prescribed medicines or administered allopathic treatment.
The accused also questioned the legality of the search conducted at his residence, referring to the requirements under Section 21 of the Act.
Opposing the revision petition, the State submitted that approximately ten patients were present at the premises when the raid was conducted and that allopathic medicines had been seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The State argued that the accused's inability to produce the requisite qualifications or registration, together with the evidence of the designated officer, established the alleged unlawful practice.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE KPME ACT
The High Court examined Section 19 of the KPME Act, which prescribes penalties for different statutory violations.
Under Section 19(1), a person who establishes, runs or maintains a private medical establishment without obtaining registration under Section 7 is liable for punishment.
Section 19(4) deals with running or maintaining a private medical establishment in violation of registration conditions and certain other statutory requirements.
The Court clarified that, to establish an offence under Section 19(1) or Section 19(4), the prosecution must primarily prove that the accused was running or maintaining a private medical establishment either without registration or in violation of the applicable registration conditions.
Therefore, establishing the essential ingredients of the statutory offence was necessary before a conviction could be sustained.
COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
The High Court examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found significant deficiencies in the evidence.
It noted that PWs 1 to 4 and PWs 7 to 9 had turned hostile. Although the Court observed that the failure of mahazar witnesses to support the prosecution does not automatically render a mahazar unproved, the investigating officer could independently establish its preparation through his evidence.
However, in the present case, the investigating officer had not adequately established the preparation of the relevant mahazars.
The Court also considered the prosecution's claim that approximately ten patients were present during the raid. However, the statements of those persons had not been recorded.
More importantly, there was no sufficient evidence demonstrating that the accused had actually examined patients or practised medicine at the premises.
The Court observed that the prosecution was relying substantially on the seizure of allopathic medicines to establish that the accused was operating a private medical establishment. However, possession of such medicines, without evidence establishing the actual practice of medicine, was insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of the offence.
The Court further pointed out that the prosecution had not produced a statement from the registering authority establishing the alleged absence of registration of the private medical establishment.
HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE THE CONVICTION
After examining the evidence and the relevant statutory provisions, the High Court concluded that the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 19, 6 and 7 read with Section 34 of the KPME Act had not been established.
The Court held that the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court lacked a proper evidentiary basis and was contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Relying also on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was allowed. The judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 19 of the KPME Act.
RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE JUDGMENT
In paragraph 11 of G. K. Bheemappa v. State of Karnataka, the High Court observed:
"As noted above, first and foremost circumstance required to be established by prosecution in order to sustain conviction under Section 19 of Act would be to establish that petitioner was 'running or maintaining private medical establishment'. Same is sought to be established on seizure of Allopathic medicine, but, without establishing that petitioner was practicing medicine i.e., for which examination of patients would be necessary. Thus, charge under Section 19 of Act cannot be sustained."
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION
The above observation highlights the importance of proving the essential ingredients of an offence under the KPME Act. The mere seizure or possession of allopathic medicines cannot, by itself, establish that a person was running or maintaining an unregistered private medical establishment.
The prosecution must establish the actual conduct constituting the alleged statutory violation through legally admissible and sufficient evidence. The decision also demonstrates that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of suspicion or an allegation unsupported by evidence establishing the essential ingredients of the offence.
CASE DETAILS
Case: G. K. Bheemappa v. State of Karnataka
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Date: 17 October 2025
Judge: Justice Ravi V. Hosmani
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 1461 of 2018
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:41548
