@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.K. Sethuraman, J.@mdashCrl. M.P. No. 11722 of 1987 is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 7307 of 1987 on the file of the XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. Crl. M.P. No. 11725 of 1987 is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 7308 of 1987 on the file of the
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. C.C. Nos. 7307 and 7308 of 1987 have been filed by the respondent complainant (Tamil
Nadu Medical Council). The petitioners have filed the petitions under S. 482, Crl. P.C., praying to call for the records in both the cases and quash
the proceedings.
2. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1 1722 of 1987 is a citizen of United State of America and she is a qualified doctor and Specialist in
Gynecology and obstetrics. She is a registered Medical Practitioner in U.S.A. She came to India with a United States of America passport after
obtaining the requisite visa and permission from the Government of India under S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to practice
medicine in India. She is employed in the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
and she is a lecturer and Trainer in Midwifery and Nurses and M.B.B.S., doctors associated with family planning project and community health
project.
3. The Government of India passed an order dated 16th March, 1984 under S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, permitting her to
practise medicine for the purpose of charitable works for a period of two years at the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil. On
18th February, 1986 an application was sent for extension of the registration to continue to work in the same hospital and the Under Secretary to
the Government of India wrote to the Administrator, Salvation Army, Catherine Booth Hospital, stating that the question of extension of permission
to practice medicine had been taken up with the Medical Council of India and further communication would follow in due course. According to the
petitioner the Government of India is likely to extend the permission for further period. While so, the respondent has filed the complaint before the
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in C C. No. 7307 of 1987 under Ss. 15(2)(b) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act.
According to the petitioner the said complaint filed against her is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
4. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 11725 of 1987 is a citizen of West Germany and according to the petition she is a qualified doctor and specialist
in Gynecology and Obstetrics and is a registered Medical Practitioner in West Germany and her registration in West Germany is permanent and
for an unlimited period. She came to India with a German passport after obtaining the requisite visa and permission from the Government of India
under S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act to practice medicine in India. She was employed in the Salvation Army Evangelin Booth Hospital,
Nidubirale, Andhra Pradesh, from 3rd September, 1970 to 31st May, ''1971 and subsequently she was working in the Salvation Army Catherine
Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, from 1st June, 1971 to 31st September, 1972.
5. Since 10th September, 1977 she is employed in the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, as the Head of the Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, lecturer and trainer in Midwifery for nurses and M.B.B.S., doctors associated with family planning project and
community health project.
6. The Government of India passed an order dated 13th March, 1984 under S. 14 of the Indian Medical council Act permitting her to practise
medicine for the purpose of charitable works for a period of two years at the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil. On 19th
February, 1986 an application was sent for extension of the registration of her to continue to work in the same hospital and the Under Secretary to
the Government of India wrote to the Administrator, Salvation Army, Catherine Booth Hospital, stating that the question of extension of permission
to practise medicine had been taken up with the Medical Council of India and further communication would follow in due course and according to
her she believes that the Government of India is likely to extend the permission for further period. While so a complaint has been filed by the
respondent before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, against the petitioner invoking S. 15(2)(b) and S. 15(3) of the Indian
Medical Council Act. According to the petitioner the complaint against the petitioner under S. 15(2)(b) and S. 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council
Act is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
7. Both the petitioners have come forward putting forth similar grounds and mainly contending that the complaint filed against them by the Tamil
Nadu Medical Council is unsustainable as according to them they are governed by S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and S. 15 is
not applicable. They have contended that it is for the Government of India to either allow them to practise medicine or to send them out of the
country. The State Medical Council has no jurisdiction over doctors to grant permission to practise medicine and on a misreading of S. 15(2(b)
and S. 15(3) the complaint had been filed. They have also contended that there is an erroneous interpretation of Ss. 14 and 15 and the contention
that a foreigner cannot practice medicine without registration under S. 15(2) is unsustainable.
8. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council itself stated in the proceedings dt. 29th September, 1977 that a foreigner was not entitled to register his or her
name in the Council and under such circumstances entertaining the complaints by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate is without jurisdiction
especially when they are practicing medine at Nagercoil. Further the Tamil Nadu Medical Council cannot be represented by an Office Assistant V.
R. Hariharan since he is not entitled to represent the council. Accordingly the petitioner in both the petitions have prayed for calling for the records
in C.C Nos. 7307 and 7308 of 1987 and for quashing the proceedings in both the cases.
9. The common point that arises for consideration in both the petitions is as to whether the petitioners'' prayer to call for the records in C.C Nos.
7307 and 7308 of 1987 and to quash the said proceedings could be allowed.
10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 11722 of 1987, who is the accused in C.C. No. 7307 of 1987,
is a citizen of United States of America and she obtained permission to practice medicine under S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for
a period of two years on 16.3.1984. Likewise the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 11725 of 1987, who is the accused in C.C. No. 7308 of 1987, is a
citizen of West Germany and she obtained permission from the Government of India by the order dt. 13.3.1984 to practice medicine in India for
the purpose of charitable work, for a period of two years, at the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil. The respective complaint
has been filed in the year 1987. There had been correspondence bet-wean the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council and the Administrator,
Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil. The above said two petitions have been laid soon after the filing of the cases against the
respective petitioner and after they received summons and appeared in the Court. Though in the petitions it had been stated that they had sent
applications for extension of the registration to continue to work in the same hospital in February, 1986 and they were expecting orders of
extension of permission from the Government of India, no such orders had been communicated to them and therefore it is clear that their practise
beyond the period of two years, viz., after March, 1986, is not covered by such permission. S. 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
contains the special provision in certain cases for recognition of medical qualification granted by the Medical institutions in the countries with which
there is no scheme of reciprocity. According to S. 14(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Central Government after consultation with the
Indian Medical Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in any country
outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical qualifications is not in force, shall be recognized medical
qualifications for the purposes of the Act or shall be so only when granted after a specified date. There is a proviso stating that medical practice by
persons possessing such qualifications (a) shall be permitted only if such persons are enrolled as medical practitioners in accordance with the law
regulating the registration of medical practitioners for the time being in force in that country; (b) shall be limited to the institution to which they are
attached for the time being for the purposes of teaching, research or charitable work; and (c) shall be limited to the period specified in this behalf
by the Central Government by general or special order. Under S.14 the Central Government, after consultation with the council may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that it shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted before a specified date.
11. Under S. 15(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, the medical qualifications
included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on any State Medical Register. Under S. 15(2), save as provided in S. 25,
no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register (a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by
whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise medicine in any State.
We are not concerned with sub-Cls.(c) and (d) of sub-S. 2 of S. 15 in this case. Under sub-S. 3 of S. 15 any person who acts in contravention of
any provisions of sub-S. (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
12. S. 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 deals with provisional registration of a citizen of India possessing a medical qualification granted
by a medical institution outside India included in Part II of the Third Schedule, who is required to undergo practical training. We are not concerned
with S. 25 in this case. Under S. 25(3) the names of all persons provisionally registered under sub-S. (l) or sub-S. (2) in the State Medical
Register shall be entered therein separately from the names of other persons registered therein.
13. Under the Tamil Nadu Medical Registration Act IV of 1914, there is a provision under S. 5 for establishment of a Medical Council in the
State. Under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 the ''State Medical Register'' means a register maintained under any law for the time being in
force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine.
14. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, wrote to the Administrator, Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, on 29th
September, 1986 requesting to inform about the foreign doctors with foreign qualifications serving in that hospital. The Salvation Army Catherine
Booth Hospital in the reply dated 30th October, 1986 informed about the petitioners herein and also stated that they had applied for extension of
permission. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, by the letter dt. 19th November, 1986 informed the Administrator, Salvation Army
Catherine Booth Hospital, that the two foreign doctors working in the institution after the expiry of the limited period of registration which has
expired in March, 1986, is illegal and further stated that the Medical Council may be forced to take legal action against the two petitioners as well
as the institution. There are other letters between them. Finally by the letter dt. 17th December, 1986 the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Medical Council
informed the Administrator, Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, that the council is a statutory body controlling the registration of qualified
medical practitioners and has also informed the views of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council that allowing the foreign doctors to practise without valid
registration will make them liable for legal proceedings. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, had also written to the Secretary, Medical
Council of India, by the letter dt. 17th December, 1986, enclosing the zerox copies of the correspondence between the Tamil Nadu Medical
Council and the Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital regarding the two foreign nationals who got temporary registration and worked for a
period of two years and their overstay after the expiry of temporary registration, and they have also sought the guidance regarding the disciplinary
action to be taken against those two doctors. The Medical Council of India in the letter dated 24th December, 1986 is shown to have stated that
according to the provisions contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, no person can practise without valid registration under any of the
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act and the State Medical Council shall be within its right to take necessary action in cases where foreign
doctors continue to practise beyond the period of their temporary registration Even thereafter the Administrator of the Salvation Army Catherine
Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, is shown to have written to the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Medical Council to ascertain from the Indian Medical Council
about their applications for extension.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even during the month of April, 1987 there was communication from the Government of
India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, stating that the extension of permission to practise medicine in respect of both the doctors had been
taken up with the Medical Council of India and further communication will follow, and the Secretary, Medical Council of India, has also been
addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in the month of October, 1987, with regard
to extension of permission to the two doctors to practise medicine in India and requesting the latest position with regard to the permission.
16. It is to be pointed out that it is the main contention of the petitioner in both the petitions that S. 15(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956, will not be applicable to the foreign doctors like the petitioner herein, who had been permitted under S. 14, Indian Medical Council Act,
1956 by the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions pointed out that the Central Government has permitted
them to practise medicine for a period of two years and subsequently they have applied for extension of the permission and under such
circumstances S. 15 will not at all come into play. But in this connection it is to be pointed out that no doubt, S. 15 says that subject to other
provisions contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification
for enrolment on any State Medical Register and under S. 15(2) no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register
shall practise medicine in any State. The permission granted to the petitioner in both the petitions for two years has expired and renewal or
extension of the permission had not been granted so far. While that is so, it cannot at all be contended that S. 15(2)(b) will not come into play. In
this connection it is also to be pointed out that in the letter dated 13-4-1987 written to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, the
Administrator, Salvation Army Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil, himself among other things has stated finally that he is undertaking to
terminate the services of the petitioner in both the petitions in the hospital if the Government of India will not grant permission to them to continue
practicing medicine in the hospital. It is also to be pointed out that in the letter dated 24-11-1986 the Medical Council of India had written to the
Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council that no person can practise without valid registration under any of the provisions of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and in such circumstances it has been stated that the State Medical Council shall be within its right to take necessary action in
cases where the foreign doctors continue to practise beyond the period of their temporary registration. A copy of the said communication has been
shown to have been forwarded for information to Dr. Jayaseelan Mathias, President, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Mathias Hospital, Nagercoil,
and after this communication only the letter dated 13-4-1987 had been written by the Administrator of the Salvation Army Catherine Booth
Hospital, Nagercoil to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council. Thus, having regard to the facts discussed above the contention of the petitioner
in both the petitions that S. 15(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner cannot be
accepted.
17. As regards the filing of the complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Madras, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the Tamil Nadu Medical Council is having its office at Madras and registration has to be done at Madras by the petitioner in both the petitions
and in such circumstances there is jurisdiction for the Court at Madras for taking cognizance of the offence at Madras. In this connection it is to be
pointed out that having regard to the fact that the registration has to be done at Madras and the offence is being committed at Nagercoil it could be
stated that under S. 178 , Crl. P.C., the case could be instituted either at Madras or at Nagercoil. As regards the complaint being instituted through
V.R. Hariharan, in as much as the Tamil Nadu Medical Council is shown to have authorised him to file the complaint there is nothing wrong in the
Assistant filing the said complaints.
18. On a careful consideration of the contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioners, I find that the contentions put forward on behalf of the
petitioner in both the petitions for quashing the proceedings against them in C.C. Nos. 7307 and 7308 of 1987, on the file of the XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, cannot be accepted. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed.
