In Brief
Two individuals were convicted of unlawfully practicing medicine without proper qualifications under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a police informant (pointer witness) who claimed the appellants treated her hand injury. However, during cross-examination, this witness admitted she had no actual injury, making the treatment claim unbelievable. The documentary evidence (prescription chit) was not properly established, and key witnesses were either family members of the landlord (with whom the appellants disputed tenancy) or declared hostile. The Supreme Court found material contradictions in testimony and ruled that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.