The appellants herein were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 33 2 and 36 2 of the Act and sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ .
During the raid, one of the employees PW 8 Sangita was found in the clinic.
Shafi PW 5, owner of the neighbouring shop and Sangita PW 8, employee engaged by the appellants in their clinic.
As against the dismissal of the appeals, the appellants carried the matter by way of Criminal Revision No.10 of 2009 which also ended in dismissal by order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the appellants and also the learned companynsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants herein were doing medical practice in their clinic at Hansapuri Road at Nagpur.
For the aforesaid offences, the appellants were tried by the companyrt of JMFC, Nagpur and on behalf of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was adduced.
The prescription alleged to have been given by the appellants was seized under the seizure panchnama being Ex.32.
Aggrieved by the above said companyviction and sentence imposed, the appellants herein have filed appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.39 and 40 of 2004 before the appellate companyrt, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who, by judgment dated 24.12.2008, dismissed the appeals.
In their deposition, PW 5 Mohd.
Thereafter PW 9 Kamalnayan lodged a report under Ex.39 at Tahsil Police Station.
Further, it is the case of the prosecution that PW 9 Kamalnayan along with the police staff raided the said clinic of the accused and the accused was found with PW 6 Yamuna Prabhakar Dekate.
The said Yamuna Prabhakar Dekate was examined as PW 6.
Among the other witnesses, the prosecution has examined Ramesh PW 1, occupant of a shop in front of the appellants clinic Deepika PW 3 daughter of the landlord Prashant PW 4 son of the landlord Mohd.
Subhash Reddy, J. This criminal appeal is filed, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2009 by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur, whereby the High Court has upheld the orders in Criminal Appeal Nos.39 and 40 companyvicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 for short, the Act.
