1 CC.No. 570 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE II- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT ADILABAD.
Present: Smt Chintala Divya Vani
II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.
Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026
CC.No. 570 of 20 17
Between:-
The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Bela Police Station.
...Complainant.
// AND //
Talapokkulwar Laxman @ Lachanna, S/o. Ramulu, Age 56 yrs, Caste Padmashali, Occ. RMP Doctor, R/o. Bela.
...Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the presence of Smt. Shaheen Sulthana, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri A.Amarender Reddy, Counsel for accused person and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-
::J U D G M E N T::
1].The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bela filed charge-sheet in Cr.No. 80/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338, 420 of IPC, Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private
Medical care registration and Regulation Act-2002, against the Accused person.
2]. The brief facts of the prosecution case are :-
(i). That on 23.09.2016 at 17:00 hours, the complainant/Shake Jafar of
Maniyarpur village lodged a complaint stating that on 24.08.2016 he took his 8-
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
2 CC.No. 570 of 2017 year-old son to Dr. T. Laxman at Bela for fever treatment, where the doctor administered injections, fluids, and medicines and collected Rs.400/- assuring recovery. However, the same night, the child developed paralysis of the left hand and leg. Subsequently, the child was shifted to Adilabad and then to
Hyderabad for treatment, where doctors opined that the condition was due to negligent treatment by the local doctor. Hence, the complainant alleged negligence and cheating by Dr. Laxman and requested necessary legal action.
(ii). On the strength of the above complaint, a case was registered in
Cr.No.80/2016 for the offence U/Sec. 337, 420 IPC, issued FIR to all concerned officers and took up the investigation.
(iii). An M.C. was issued to LW-2 on 24.09.2016. At the request of the
Investigating Officer, LW-4 visited the scene of offence at Bela Main Road, and in the presence of mediators LWs 6 and 7, a crime detail form and seizure panchanama were prepared. Based on the panchanama and witness statements, Section 11 of the TS Allopathic Private Medical Care Registration and Regulation Act, 2002 was added and a memo was submitted before the
Hon’ble Court. The accused was arrested on 27.09.2016 and remanded to
judicial custody.
(iv). LW-10 examined LW-5 and recorded her statement. A requisition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was sent to LW-8 (DMHO, Adilabad), who furnished the required information. Since LW-2 had taken treatment at a private hospital, another requisition was sent to the RMO, RIMS Adilabad, and LW-9 opined that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature. Accordingly, the section of law was altered from Section 337 IPC to Section 338 IPC and after completion of
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
3 CC.No. 570 of 2017
Investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused person.
3]. This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338, 420 of IPC, Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration and
Regulation ACt-2002 against the Accused person.
4].On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.PC. Accused person was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 338, 420 of IPC,
Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration and Regulation
ACt-2002 for which the Accused has denied the allegations levelled against him and having been explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5].Prosecution in order to prove their case, examined PW1/LW1 Shaik
Jafar/complainant, LW2/Shaik Ayaan/victim son of PW1 as PW2, LW4/Dr.
Sadhana SPHO/Doctor as PW3, LW6/Siraj Batiya/panch for CDF as PW4, LW5/Dr.
K. Surath Kumar/Medical Officer as PW5, LW8/Dr. Chandu/DM&HO as PW6,
LW9/Dr. M. Suryakanth/I/C.HOD as PW7, and LW10/K. Naresh Kumar, Sub-
Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet, as PW8.
On behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and material objects MO 1 to 4.
6].After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused person was given an opportunity of being heard by putting before him all the incriminating circumstances alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
4 CC.No. 570 of 2017 envisaged under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused person has denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.
7]. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8]. Now, the point for consideration is :
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused person beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 338, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration and Regulation Act-2002 ?” 9 . POINT :
(i). To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW1, who is the father of the victim was examined. In his chief examination, PW1 stated that on 23.08.2016 his son suffered from fever and he took him to the clinic of the accused, who is an RMP doctor at Bela. The accused administered injection through glucose and prescribed medicines, for which PW1 paid Rs.400/-. He further deposed that on the same night, PW2 again suffered from fever and on the next day he was taken to RIMS, Adilabad, from where he was referred to
Hyderabad. At Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, the doctor informed that due to earlier treatment there was blood clot in the brain, resulting in disability of left hand and leg of PW2. PW1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In further chief examination, PW1 relied upon Ex.P2 to Ex.P15, which include prescription, MRI report, lab reports, and other medical documents. During the cross- examination, PW1 admitted that the name of the accused is not specifically mentioned in Ex.P2; however, he clarified that there exists a medical store by name Yashodhara Medical and General Store, on whose slip the prescription appears to have been issued. Merely because the name of the accused is not
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
5 CC.No. 570 of 2017 reflected on Ex.P2, the document cannot be discarded, particularly when the existence of the said medical store is not in dispute and the prosecution case is that the accused was practicing from the said premises. PW1 has further admitted that he is illiterate and unable to read the contents of Exs.P2 to P15 which do not weakens the case of the prosecution. Further, PW1 has specifically denied the suggestion that Exs.P2 to P15 do not contain any reference to treatment by the accused. Except for such suggestions, no material contradiction or omission has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. The remaining suggestions put to PW1 are general in nature and remain unsubstantiated. It is well settled that mere suggestions made in cross-examination, without being supported by any independent evidence, do not carry any evidentiary value and do not ensure to the benefit of the accused.
(ii). Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2 is the prescription slip allegedly issued by the accused on the slip of Yashodhara Medical Store,
Bela. Ex.P3 is the MRI brain report of PW2 dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P4 is the bio- chemistry report of PW2 dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P5 is the physiotherapy invoice
dated 29.10.2016. Ex.P6 is the microbiology report dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P7 is
the CPK report dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P8 is the bio-chemistry report of PW2
dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P9 is the doctor prescription dated 22.09.2017. Ex.P10 is
the complete blood picture report dated 29.10.2016. Ex.P11 is the doctor prescription dated 29.10.2016. Ex.P12 is the serology and immunology report
dated 22.09.2016. Ex.P13 is the hematology report dated 22.09.2016 consisting
of three pages. Ex.P14 is the prescription dated 21.09.2016. Ex.P15 is the doctor prescription dated 05.09.2016. Ex.P16 is the signature of PW4 on seizure panchanama. Ex.P17 is the signature of PW4 on Crime Detail Form (CDF) along
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
6 CC.No. 570 of 2017 with rough sketch. Ex.P18 is the letter from District Medical and Health Officer along with xerox copy of seizure report dated 23.09.2016 marked subject to objection. Ex.P19 is the seizure panchanama dated 24.09.2016 relating to
Schedule-H drugs marked subject to objections. Ex.P20 is the requisition issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer. Ex.P21 is the reply furnished by the District Medical and Health Officer. Ex.P22 is not mentioned in the record. Ex.P23 is the medical opinion certificate issued by PW7 opining that the injury is grievous in nature. Ex.P24 is the First Information Report. Ex.P25 is the medical requisition/referral to RIMS. Ex.P26 is the Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch of scene of offence. The following material objects are marked. MO1 is the One Maczone One gram injection vial, MO2 is the One
Maczone 500mg injection vial, MO3 One is the Finecef 250 mg injection vial,
MO4 One is the Macmika 100 mg injection vial, PW7 was again recalled through CRL MP no.103/2024 dated 30-04-2024 and was further cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
(iii). PW2, the victim and a child witness, was examined after the
Court satisfied itself regarding his competency. In his chief examination, PW2 stated that the accused administered two injections, one directly and another through glucose, and prescribed tablets. He further stated that during night he suffered pain and his left hand and leg became affected. He deposed that at
Hyderabad hospital, the doctor opined that the accused had given wrong treatment. However, in cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he has no knowledge about contents of Ex.P2 to Ex.P15 and that those documents do not mention that his disability was caused due to treatment by the accused. It was further stated that on the next day PW2 was taken to Swamy doctor wherein he
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
7 CC.No. 570 of 2017 was further referred to an Hospital in Hyderabad. Thereafter, they went to a
Nuero Hospital in Hyderabad, where the doctor has diagnosed PW2 and after going to the previous treatment given by the accused, the doctor stated that the accused has given wrong treatment and the victim further added that presently his left hand and leg are not working properly and his left foot has been twisted inward. Further, the contention that the said Swamy doctor or the doctors at Hyderabad were not examined does not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case. It is well settled that non-examination of certain witnesses is not fatal when the evidence already on record is cogent, consistent, and sufficient to establish the material facts. In the present case, the testimony of
PW1 and PW2 clearly establishes the sequence of events, and the medical evidence on record corroborates the nature of injuries sustained by PW2.
Therefore, mere non-examination of the doctor who initially referred the victim or the doctors who treated him at Hyderabad does not disprove the case of the prosecution, particularly when there is no material contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence that has been adduced.
(iv). Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/brother of the complainant as PW1 and PW2 evidence corroborates with each other and there are no inconsistencies in their evidence. Later, the prosecution has examined
LW4/PW3 Medical Officer, who deposed about inspection of Yashodara
Hospital and seizure of Schedule-H drugs as per the oral instructions of the
District Medical and Health Officer. Witness also adds that the medical stores and clinic are in the same and combined establishment. Further she admitted that Ex.P18 is only a photostat copy without proper signatures, dates, or official endorsements and that no drug inspector was involved in the seizure and the
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
8 CC.No. 570 of 2017 original file was missing due to shifting purposes. This court observed that merely because the drugs were not seized by a particular authority, it cannot be said that the seizure itself is untenable or liable to be rejected in toto. In the present case, the seizure was effected as per the oral instructions of the District
Medical and Health Officer in the course of investigation and in the presence of panch witnesses and the same has been duly stated by the prosecution witnesses and supported by the seizure panchanama. At the most, any irregularity in the manner of seizure may affect the weight to be attached to such evidence, but it does not render the entire prosecution case invalid, particularly when the seizure is otherwise proved and corroborated by oral and documentary evidence.
(v) PW4/LW6, a panch witness, supported the case of the prosecution wherein, in his chief he stated that the medicines were seized in his presence. Ex.P16 is his signature on seizure panchanama and Ex.P17 is his signature on the CDF along with rough sketch. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that no panch chits were affixed on seized material objects and that several important details are not mentioned in the Crime Detail Form. In the cross he stated that in the CDF it was not mentioned as it was conducted in the 1st floor of the Yashodara Hospital however, witness further added by stating that there was a board of Yashodara Medical and General Store where the panchanama was conducted in his presence.
(vi) PW5/LW5, a medical officer, stated that as he received information that PW2 was administered Gentamycin injection leading to paralysis thereby causing “Haemorrhagic infract involving right
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
9 CC.No. 570 of 2017 capsuloganglionic and periventricular regions” he has immediately informed the DM & HO and on oral instructions, he along with PW3 and SI of Police, Bela went to the accused hospital and they have found 4 schedule H drugs. Further he has stated that as per the instructions from the DH & MO, they have seized the entire hospital. It was stated by the witness that such drugs have to be seized by a competent drug inspector and that the accused has not produced any registered medical practitioner certificate thereby they have found that the accused has not been registered with the DM & HO. In his cross-examination, he stated that Ex.P2 does not mention Gentamycin injection and that MRI report (Ex.P3) does not indicate that injury was caused due to such injection and no proof is adduced by PW2 to state the same. Further PW5 adds that
Ex.P3 might have occurred due to the administration of the Gentamycin medicine and he is not a qualified nuero surgeon. PW5 further stated that,
Ex.P18 does not contain the list of drugs seized but the witness adds that it was mentioned in Ex.P18 that Schedule H drugs were seized. He further admitted that he is not a neuro specialist and had not referred the case to any neuro expert. It was stated by the witness that such drugs have to be seized by a competent drug inspector but this court opines that such irregularity does not discard the case of the prosecution when such seizure was done as per the instructions of the DH & MO. and that the accused has not produced any registered medical practitioner certificate thereby they have found that the accused has not been registered with the DM & HO for practicing as Modern
Medicine which is in violation of Section 11 of the TS ALLOPATHIC PRIVATE
MEDICAL CARE ESTABLISHMENTS (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) ACT, 2002. Moreover, the evidence on record shows that PW2 developed serious neurological complications immediately after treatment, and the medical
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
10 CC.No. 570 of 2017 witnesses have spoken about the possibility of drug-induced or treatment- related complications. Ex.P2 not mentioning Gentamycin does not discredit the prosecution case or break the chain of evidence established against the accused when viewed in conjunction with the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the subsequent medical findings
(vii) PW6/LW8 is the DM & HO wherein he stated that PW3 and PW5 are his subordinates. Ex.P20 is marked through him which is the requisition he has received from the Police Bela u/s 91 of the CRPC for furnishing information and subsequently Ex.P21 is marked which is the information given to the questionary requested under Ex.P20. He also further stated that as per his oral instructions only PW3 and PW5 has gone to the place and seized the said medicines. In his cross though he admitted that the Drug Inspector is the authorized person to seize such medicines, the said Schedule H Drugs were seized by PW3 and PW5 as per the instructions of the DH & MO which does not render the seizure illegal.
(viii). PW7, who gave expert opinion under Ex.P23, opined that injury is grievous but clearly stated that the cause of injury cannot be ascertained due to lack of details of drugs administered. In cross-examination, he admitted that no past history of treatment by accused is mentioned in medical records and that a competent medical board should give opinion in such cases. PW7 was recalled as was cross examined on Ex.P15.Ex.P15, as spoken to by PW7, indicates that there was a possibility that the victim might have been affected by tuberculosis. However, even if such a possibility is taken into consideration, the same does not advance the case of the defence. On the
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
11 CC.No. 570 of 2017 contrary, it strengthens the case of the prosecution as the accused, being a medical practitioner, was under a duty to exercise reasonable care and caution while treating the patient, which includes eliciting prior medical history, assessing underlying conditions, and undertaking appropriate diagnostic evaluation before administering treatment.
(ix). In the present case, there is no material to show that the accused made any effort to ascertain the previous medical history of the victim or to rule out serious underlying conditions such as tuberculosis before administering injections and medication. The failure of the accused to conduct such basic and necessary medical assessment amounts to a clear deviation from the standard of care expected of a medical practitioner. Thus, even assuming that the victim might have been suffering from tuberculosis, the negligence of the accused lies in not identifying or considering the same and proceeding with treatment in a rash and careless manner. Therefore, Ex.P15, rather than absolving the accused, further indicates that the accused failed in his duty of care, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that the act of the accused was negligent and contributed to the grievous condition of the victim. During cross-examination, he admitted alternative possibilities including TB as per
Ex.P15, but such opinion was expressed only as a possibility and not as a definite cause supported by independent clinical proof. The defense failed to establish by any documentary evidence that PW2 was suffering from tuberculosis at the relevant time. Ex.P15, even if considered, only suggests a possibility and does not establish causation.
(x). It is well settled that medical opinion is advisory in nature and not conclusive proof and cannot override consistent ocular testimony when it is credible and supported by circumstances. In the present case, the immediate
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
12 CC.No. 570 of 2017 onset of paralysis after treatment, coupled with consistent testimony of PW1 and PW2, clearly establishes a strong chain of circumstances pointing towards negligent treatment. The defense contention based on TB remains unsubstantiated. No medical records, diagnostic proof, or independent expert evidence has been produced to show that PW2 was suffering from tuberculosis. It is also pertinent to note that the suggestion regarding tuberculosis was not seriously substantiated during cross-examination. No specific questions or material suggestions were put either to PW1 or PW2 with respect to tuberculosis as an alternative cause of the condition. As such, the said contention of the accused is not tenable either in law and facts. Hence, is not accepted.
(xi). PW8, who is the official witness, spoke about procedural aspects of investigation. Ex.P24 is the FIR which is marked through him. Ex.P25 is marked as the requisition form for sending PW2 to RIMS. Ex.P26 is the CDF and
Rough sketch. He stated that on the seizure of the drugs he has added section 11 of the Allopathi Private Medical Care registration and regulation act 2002 and also altered the section of law from 337 to 338 basing on the injuries caused to PW2. Though PW8/Investigating Officer admitted in cross- examination that he has not collected evidence such as identification of prescription writer, expert opinion on Ex.P2, examination of neuro specialist, or proof of payment of Rs.400/-, the evidence of PW8 when read as a whole, establishes that the investigation was conducted in a consistent manner leading to filing of charge sheet against the accused based on medical opinion and witness statements.
(xii). It is a settled principle of law that in cases of medical negligence, the prosecution must establish that the accused acted in a rash or
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
13 CC.No. 570 of 2017 negligent manner and that such act directly caused the injury. In the present case, there is conclusive evidence linking the treatment of the accused to the alleged brain clot leading to such disability. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, corroborated with the other witnesses proves that PW2 clearly proves that the accused, an RMP practitioner, administered injections and prescribed medicines to PW2, following which the child developed sudden pain and paralysis-like symptoms in his left hand and leg. This sequence of events is supported by the medical records and the subsequent expert opinion which confirms that the injury sustained by PW2 is grievous in nature. The defence plea that the condition of PW2 might be attributable to tuberculosis remains wholly unsubstantiated. Even PW7’s reference to Ex.P15 indicates only a possibility and not a definite medical conclusion. In fact, no effective cross- examination or material suggestion was put either to PW1 or PW2 to substantiate the theory of tuberculosis as an alternative cause.
(xiii). Further, the evidence clearly establishes that the accused failed to exercise the basic standard of medical care expected of a practitioner.
There is nothing on record to show that the accused undertook any proper assessment of the patient’s prior medical history or considered underlying conditions before administering treatment. Such omission, particularly in the case of a minor patient, amounts to a clear departure from the standard of reasonable medical care and constitutes negligence within the meaning of
Section 338 IPC. In addition to the above, the evidence of PW3, PW5, and PW6 establishes that the accused was found practicing allopathic medicine without valid registration under the Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care
Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002. The materials on record further indicate that Schedule-H drugs were found in the premises and
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
14 CC.No. 570 of 2017 were being handled without compliance of statutory requirements and the accused has also failed to produce any medical registration certificate, thereby attracting liability under Section 11 of the said Act.
(xiv). This court, upon a detailed appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence under Section 338 IPC and Section 11 of the Telangana
Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation)
Act, 2002, but failed to establish the offence under Section 420 IPC. Insofar as
Section 338 IPC is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly establishes that the accused administered injections and treatment to the minor victim, after which the child immediately developed severe complications, including paralysis of the left hand and leg. The sequence of events, coupled with the medical records and the opinion that the injury was grievous in nature, sufficiently proves that the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner. The court observed that the accused failed to exercise the basic standard of care expected of a medical practitioner, particularly by not assessing the medical history or underlying condition of the patient before administering injections, which directly resulted in grievous hurt to the victim.
(xv).With regard to Section 11 of the Allopathy Act, the prosecution has established through the evidence of PW3, PW5, and PW6 that the accused was practicing allopathic medicine without possessing the required registration or authorization from the competent authority. It was further proved that Schedule-H drugs were found in his premises and were being used without compliance with statutory requirements. The accused failed to produce any valid registration certificate, thereby clearly violating the provisions of the said Act. However, in respect of the offence under Section
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
15 CC.No. 570 of 2017 420 IPC, the court found that the essential ingredients of cheating, namely dishonest intention at the inception were not proved by the prosecution. There is no clear evidence to show that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of treating the victim or that he intentionally deceived
PW1 to extract money. Therefore, the accused is acquitted of the charge under
Section 420 IPC.
(xvi). As per the above held discussion, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, without due qualification and without exercising reasonable care, administered treatment to PW2 which resulted in grievous injury. The acts of the accused therefore clearly constitute rash and negligent conduct attracting punishment under Section 338 IPC, 1860 and in violation of statutory requirements under Section 11 of the Allopathy Act 2002 is also established.
Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
10]. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private
Medical care registration and Regulation Act-2002 and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 of
IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. The case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Hearing the accused on quantum of sentence :
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
16 CC.No. 570 of 2017
Dated : 04-05-2026
1.When the accused is questioned about the sentence he stated that he has not committed such offence and thus he requested the court to take a lenient view while imposing a sentence against him.
2.On considering the facts of the case, as the main object of the sections would be defeated, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply provisions of probation of offenders act.
3.Thus in view of the submissions of the accused and gravity of the case, this court is inclined to take a balanced view in imposing sentence.
4.Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the Section 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration and Regulation Act-2002 and in default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.
5.Any period of detention which has been undergone by the accused during enquiry or trial such period shall be set off as per Section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
6.The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and and is also informed about the right of legal aid as per Section 304 Cr.P.C. where the accused has informed that he is having sufficient means to prefer an appeal
The office is directed to furnish free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction,pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4 th day of May, 2026).
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
17 CC.No. 570 of 2017
II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
ADILABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1: Shaik Jafar/victim-complainant --NIL--
PW2: Shake Ayaan/injured
PW3: Dr.Sadhana/SPHO
PW4: Siraj Batiya/Panch for CDF
PW5: Dr.K.Surath Kumar/Medical Officer
PW6: Dr.Todsam Chandu/DMHO
PW7: Dr.M.Suryakanth/IC/HOD
PW8: K.Naresh Kumar, SI of police/Investigation Officer.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1 – NIL --
Ex.P2: Prescription slip allegedly issued Yashodhara Medical Store,Bela.
Ex.P3: MRI Brain Report of PW2 dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P4: Bio-Chemistry Report of PW2 dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P5: Invoice dated 29.10.2016
Ex.P6: Microbiology Report dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P7: CPK Report dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P8: Bio-Chemistry Report dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P9: Doctor Prescription dated 22.09.2017
Ex.P10: Complete Blood Picture Report dated 29.10.2016
Ex.P11: Doctor Prescription dated 29.10.2016
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
18 CC.No. 570 of 2017
Ex.P12: Cerology & Immunology Report dated 22.09.2016
Ex.P13: Hematology Report dated 22.09.2016 (3 pages)
Ex.P14: Doctor Prescription dated 21.09.2016
Ex.P15: Doctor Prescription dated 05.09.2016
Ex.P16: Signature of PW4 on Panchanama
Ex.P17: Signature on CDF PW4
Ex.P18: Letter from District Medical & Health Officer along with xerox copy of seizure report dated 23.09.2016 (subject to objection)
Ex.P19: Seizure Panchanama dated 24.09.2016 (Schedule-H drugs)
Ex.P20: Requisition under Section 91 Cr.P.C issued by Investigating Officer
Ex.P21: Reply/Information furnished by DM&HO
Ex.P22: (Not mentioned in record)
Ex.P23: Medical Opinion Certificate issued by PW7 (Grievous injury opinion)
Ex.P24: First Information Report.
Ex.P25: Medical Requisition/Referral to RIMS
Ex.P26: Crime Detail Form and Rough Sketch of scene of offence
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
MO1 – One Maczone 1 gm injection vial
MO2 – One Maczone 500 mg injection vial
MO3 – One Finecef 250 mg injection vial
MO4 – One Macmika 100 mg injection vial
Sd/-
II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
ADILABAD.
// TRUE COPY //
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
19 CC.No. 570 of 2017
II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
ADILABAD.
IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, AT ADILABAD.
CALENDAR CASE NO. 570 OF 2017
1. Date of offence:23.09.2016
2. Date of Complaint:23.09.2016
3. Date of appearance of accused :04.09.2017
4. Date of commencement of trial :26.11.2018
5. Date of closure of trial:26.02.2026
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM
20 CC.No. 570 of 2017
6. Date of sentence or order:04.05.2026
COMPLAINANT
The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Bela Police Station.
ACCUSED:
Talapokkulwar Laxman @ Lachanna, S/o. Ramulu, Age 56 yrs, Caste Padmashali, Occ. RMP Doctor, R/o. Bela.
Offence : U/sec. 338, 420 of IPC, 1860 and Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration & Regulation Act-2002
Finding of Court: Found guilty.
Sentence/Order: In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 11 of TS Allopathi Private Medical care registration and Regulation Act-2002 and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. The case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
ADILABAD.
Dt: 04.05.2026 II-Addl.JFCM