Home > Chandigarh > Authorities > Chandigarh > Ayurvedic Department Punjab
Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Address:SCO 823-24, Sector 22-A
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is a State Authority under the control of State Government.
Ayurvedic Department Punjab is situated in Chandigarh of Chandigarh state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.
Contact Person(s) of the Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is (are): Dr Rakesh Sharma, Director Ayurveda 98147-79242.
Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh are Satish Kumar Supdt-II 99881-06171.
Contact Details of Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh are : 0172-2702708
Dr Bakshish Singh Joint Director Ayurveda Punjab Mobile 81465-26647
CoursesAyurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh runs course(s) in Ayurvedic stream(s).
Images / newspaper cuttings related to Ayurvedic Department Punjab
Tender Notice ()
Tender Notice are invited for Drug Testing Laboratry (Advertisement)
Bajpa neta par ghaplebaji officers ko bachane ka arop (News)
Ayurvedic vibhag ke Suprident ko suspend karne ki sifarish (News)
Pay fixation of Up vaids done (News)
Upvaidh ki panjikarn parkirya hogi saral (News)
Media coverage of Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh, Chandigarh
HEM RAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB Crl. Revision 141 of 2002In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: May 19, 2009
Hem Raj .. Petitioner
State of Punjab .. Respondent
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 22.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.10.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (herein referred as 'the Act') and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 28 of the Act.
In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 29.7.1993, complainant Ajay Singla District Drugs Inspector, Bathinda, along with Dr. Sadhu Ram Gupta, District Family Welfare Officer, Bathinda and Naginder Prashad Class IV employee went to the shop of the petitioner for inspection.
He introduced himself and other witnesses. He joined Mohan Lal as a witness. On inspection, the petitioner was found stocking and exhibiting allopathic drugs for sale and distribution in the shop and he also failed to produce any drugs licence or any valid Registered Medical Practitioner certificate authorising him to keep the drugs for sale and distribution. He also failed to disclose the names and addresses from where he acquired the drugs stocked by him. A sample of drug Chloromphnicol Pabnitate oral
suspension L.PBNo.2111 made by Associated Pharma Industries Gaziabad was taken for test and analysis and prepared inspection form 17 at the spot.
12 types of drugs were also seized along with other articles and list was also prepared on form No.16. A sample was sent to Government Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh for analysis and report was received that the drug was of standard quality. The complaint was filed in the court.
Pre-charge evidence was recorded. Finding a prima facie case the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 27 (b)(ii) read with Section 18-C and 18-A of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Ajay Singla (PW1) and Dr. Sadhu Ram Gupta (DW2).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. He further explained that he is a registered medical practitioner from the State of Bihar at Registration No. 42653 w.e.f.. 3.10.1985 and has right to practice of in allopathic medicines. In defence he tendered into evidence original certificate Ex.DA.
Both the courts below, have unnecessarily tried to enter into controversy while holding the petitioner guilty of the offence. The petitioner admittedly is a “vaid”, authorised practitioner in Ayurvedic and Unani system of medicines. The certificate (Ex.DA) issued by Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Board, Bihar reveals that he was registered with the aforesaid Board on 3.10.1985. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules framed by the Central Government under the Act.
Rule 2 (ee) (ii) reads as under :-
2.(ee) Registered Medical Practitioner means a person
(ii)registered or eligible for registration in a medical register of a State meant for the registration of persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine excluding the Homeopathic system of medicine.
The words “eligible for registration in a medical register of a State” means that he may be eligible or has been registered as medical practitioner of any State and not necessarily with the State where he is practicing .
It is not challenged by the prosecution that the petitioner holds a certificate of registration from the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Bihar and was duly registered as such in Bihar. By virtue of Schedule 1 to the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, everybody who is holding a degree or diploma of any Ayurvedic or Unani college recognized by the faculty within Punjab or outside would be eligible for being registered as a medical practitioner in the State of Punjab and Haryana. In view of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner comes within the definition of registered medical practitioner and as such he was entitled to keep allopathic medicines for practice, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for violating the provisions of Section 18 (c) and 27 (b) of the Act. Similar observations were made by this Court in case Phul Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1986 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 532.
In view of the matter, the lower appellate court appears to have fallen in error in holding the petitioner guilty who is already registered with the Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Board, Bihar.
Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded.
Summary: Ayurvedic Department Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.