Sec 38(1) of Act 56 of 1974 states:

Any person, not registered as a dentist, who for gain … (takes impressions, bites, trying in or fitting dentures)…shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction …


Sec 59 of Act 56 of 1974 states:

No remuneration shall be recovered in respect of any act pertaining to the profession of a registered person when performed by a person who is not authorized under this Act to perform such act for gain 

Clearly the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Professions Act of 1974 are focused in this regard on the right of Dentists-only to charge fees for supplying dentures and are apparently more concerned about prescribing fines and imprisonment to the perpetrators of the contravention of their professional prerogatives to get remuneration, than any attempt or concern indicated what-so-ever for the safety of the patient concerned and automatically assumes untested incompetence of the accused.

Sec 27(1) of Act 19 of 1979 states (without the 1997 CDT amendment):

No person other than a dentist shall, for gain … (provide dentures)

Furthermore, Sec 27(4) of Act 19 of 1979 states:

In any prosecution for a conviction of subsection (1), the accused shall, unless the contrary be proved, be deemed to have performed the act in respect of which the prosecution is instituted, for gain.

This is an anti-competitive monopoly for Dentists-only to sell dentures and to prosecute any competition and can hardly be described more directly. These sections in the Dental Technicians Act of 1979 has been specifically designed originally to prevent the development of Denturism, or any other threat to the vested interests or income of the dental profession. It even goes so far as to find the Accused guilty, without recourse. This is principally unfair and patently unjust!  How can an innocently Accused, provide tangible evidence of something that did not happen? No gain cannot be proved, therefore the accused are found guilty without consideration of the universal concept of innocence until proven guilty and is obviously blatantly unconstitutional!