Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Kumar Puri vs Dr. Anupama Singh And Others on 28 March, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005
Date of decision: March 28, 2014
Harish Kumar Puri
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Dr. Anupama Singh and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Present: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondents No.1 and 2.
Dr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
Surinder Gupta, J
This revision petition challenges the order dated 7.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Case No.29 of 2004 whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were ordered to be discharged.
Briefly stated, the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint on 29.10.2003 for offence punishable under Sections 304, 217, 218, 219, 201/34 and 120-B IPC against Dr. Anupama Singh Medical Officer and Dr. S.S. Saini, Chief Medical Officer, L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra.
The case of petitioner is that on fateful day of 14.5.1996, his son met with an accident while waiting for green signal on the crossing of G.T. Road Pipli and received serious injuries. He remained entrapped under the truck and was taken out after about one hour by the public using jack to lift the truck. The doctor at L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra referred the son of the complainant to P.G.I. Chandigarh but he died on the way. The complainant filed the complaint against Dr. Anupama Singh who was posted as In-charge of emergency ward and Dr. S.S. Saini, In-charge of the hospital at the relevant time.
The allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint were as follows :-
i) There was no arrangement of blood in the hospital and attendants arranged six bottles of blood.
ii) While referring the son of the complainant to P.G.I. Kumar Deepak 2014.04.03 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005 -2- Chandigarh, no emergency paramedical staff, life saving oxygen etc. were provided.
iii) Respondent No.1 referred the patient to P.G.I. Chandigarh despite the fact that he was not in a condition to be shifted there.
iv) Two untested and unmatched blood units were supplied to be used on the way.
v) In the medicolegal report only four injuries were mentioned on the lower limb while in the postmortem examination which was conducted by the respondent No.2, eight injuries including abdominal injuries were mentioned and this shows the negligence on the part of respondent No.1.
vi) The complainant gave representation to the then Chief Minister for taking action against the erring doctors and enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that documents relating to the treatment of son of the complainant were missing.
vii) The department initiated regular enquiry proceedings under Rule 7/8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987.
On the complaint filed, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 13.8.2004 summoned the respondents No.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sections 304/201/218 read with Section 120-B IPC, respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 217 IPC and after procuring their presence committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.
Vide order dated 7.4.2005, the court of Sessions did not find prima facie case to frame charge against respondents No.1 and 2 and they were ordered to be discharged.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the file with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra after recording the preliminary evidence had found a prima facie case for offence punishable Kumar Deepak 2014.04.03 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005 -3- under Sections 304/201/218/217 read with Section 120-B IPC against the respondents and they were summoned. After summoning the respondents, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra without looking into the evidence on file has order the discharge of the accused vide impugned order dated 7.4.2005. From the perusal of the order of the trial court it is evident that son of the petitioner had died due to the negligence of respondents who, at the relevant time, were posted as In-charge of Emergency Ward and Hospital respectively. Instead of providing treatment to the injured patient, he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh without providing any attendant to take care of him on the way, life saving drugs and ambulance. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court was only to see as to whether any prima facie case is made out or not instead of analyzing the quality of evidence on record.
Learned State counsel has argued that son of the complainant was taken to the hospital where he was immediately attended to by the doctors. The condition of the injured was precarious as such he was immediately referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. The doctor had performed their part of duty and if there was non availability of ambulance, life saving drugs, blood etc. in the hospital, the same cannot be attributed to the doctors posted there.
The trial court, on perusal of the record found that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents while attending the son of the complainant and the complaint was not legally sustainable for want of sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The complainant in compensation case filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra has attributed the death of his son due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and truck causing accident.
In the revision petition, this court has to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of the findings recorded by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra while passing the order of discharge of respondents No.1 and 2 in the complaint filed by the petitioner.
The plea raised in the complaint do not point out the negligence on the part of the respondents. If the ambulance was not available in the hospital or the attendant, life saving drugs etc. were not provided while Kumar Deepak 2014.04.03 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005 -4- shifting the patient from Kurukshetra to P.G.I. Chandigarh, the respondents, who were posted in the hospital as doctor cannot be held responsible. To provide blood bank in the hospital and other infrastructure and facilities is the responsibility of the State and the doctors in no manner can be held personally responsible for the lack of required infrastructure in the hospital. The prime duty of the doctor is to make all efforts to save the victim and if so rerquired to refer him to better equipped hospital in time. As per the complainant, his son had remained entrapped under the truck for about one hour and was taken out by the public present there by using 'jack'. The respondent No.1 who treated the son of the complainant being on duty in the Emergency Ward had no intention to cause death of the patient while referring him to Chandigarh. In case she had not referred the patient to P.G.I. Chandigarh in time, this would have rather given a reason to the complainant to allege her negligence in discharge of duty. The trial court has discussed, on the basis of the record of the hospital, that son of the complainant was duly attended in the hospital and it was on the request of the attendant that he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. In the entire complaint, there is nothing to attract the provisions of Section 304 IPC against Dr. S.S. Saini. Simply because he was posted as In-charge of the hospital do not make him liable for offence under Section 304 IPC. The trial court had also not found any evidence on file to make out a prima facie case for framing of charge under Section 304, 201, 217, 218 and 120-B IPC. It was also observed by the trial court that respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled to discharge for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The parties are ad-idem that the respondents No.1 and 2 can be removed from service only with the sanction of the Government. In case Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh 2013(4) R.C.R. (criminal) 899, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"50. The High Court has taken the view that the prosecution launched by the Appellant against the Respondent was legally impermissible without the sanction of the State Government. That view has been assailed before us primarily on the ground that the Respondent was neither acting nor could be said to be acting in the purported discharge of his official duty so as to Kumar Deepak 2014.04.03 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005 -5- entitle him to the protection of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure which to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes read as under:-
'197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or a Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) xxx."
51. A careful reading of the above would show that protection against prosecution will be available only if the following ingredients are satisfied :
(a) The person concerned is or was a judge or magistrate or public servant.
(b) Such person is not removable from his office save by the sanction of the Government.
(c) Such person is accused of commission of an offence and
(d) Such offence is committed while the person concerned was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties."
The allegations as levelled against respondents No.1 and 2 by Kumar Deepak 2014.04.03 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 1322 of 2005 -6- the complainant relate to an act performed by them in discharge of their official duty. The provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the facts of the case and the Revisional Court in its order dated 7.4.2005 has rightly observed as follows :-
"......... In the present case, the alleged act of accused persons while discharging their official duty has been complained against and this being so, an obligation is cast upon complainant to seek prior necessary sanction of the Govt. for prosecution of accused persons being public servants in the instant complaint case. In this view of the matter, observations held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid ruling as well as in M.P. Gupta's case (supra) as relied upon by learned defence counsel can safely be acted upon. It is held therein that so far as public servants are concerned, the cognizance of any offence, by any court, is barred by Section 197 Cr.P.C. unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of official duty."
On perusal of the record and the order of the learned trial court, I find that the trial court was competent to order the discharge of respondents No.1 and 2 as it did not find any prima facie case to frame charge against them. The impugned order do not suffer from any legal and factual infirmity so as to interfere with the same.
There are no merits in this petition.
Dismissed.
March 28, 2014 (Surinder Gupta)
deepak Judge
Kumar Deepak
2014.04.03 11:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document