Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2014
CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-787-SB-2003
Date of Decision : 29.11.2014
Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh
.......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMIT RAM
Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab.
****
GURMIT RAM, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ravinder Pal Singh against the judgment and order of sentence dated 8.4.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appellant who was accused before the learned trial Court has been held guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and convicted thereunder.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an application filed by complainant Sarabjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, contents of which are detailed as under:-
"That Amarjit Singh (since deceased) was his brother- in-law i.e. husband of his sister. On 2.6.2001 he and his maternal uncle son namely Amanbeer Singh had gone to Aliwal to see their relatives. On the next day BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -2- i.e. on 3.6.2001 they reached at Batala in the morning and when they reached near bus-stand, Batala then in the meantime there came his above-said brother-in- law Amarjit Singh in a car which was being driven by his driver namely Ajit Singh from the side of Naushera Majja Singh, District Gurdaspur. On seeing them, the said driver Ajit Singh stopped his car and told them that Amarjit Singh is suffering from stomach pain and that he is taking him to Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh for medical check-up. Complainant Sarabjit Singh and Amanbir Singh also sat in the said car and went to Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Ravi Hospital, Aliwal Road, Batala. The said doctor checked Amarjit Singh and told them that his operation is to be done and when they enquired from him as to why the operation is to be done, then he told them that Amarjit Singh is suffering either from kidney problem or appendicitis. Then they told the doctor to give them some time to call the family member of Amarjit Singh for consultation. They also told him that patient is suffering from sugar and as such consultation is required qua his operation. Then Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh told them not to indulge in consultation, operation is must. When they were still willy-nilly qua the operation, the Dr. Ravinder Pal BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -3- Singh took Amarjit Singh inside the operation theatre. He demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the operation. At that time they were having a sum of Rs.3,000/- only. After performing operation of Amarjit Singh, he(Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh) demanded the balance amount from them which they had paid after bringing the same from the house of Amarjit Singh. When they came back from the house of Amarjit Singh in the hospital then they found patient Amarjit Singh in a serious condition and he was also suffering from fits. When they enquired from the doctor in this regard, he did not give any satisfactory reply. Patient remained under severe pain in the hospital throughout the night. When they tried to talk Dr.Ravinder Pal Singh then they were told that he had gone to Amritsar. When he (Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh) came to the hospital on 4.6.2001 then they told him that patient is in a critical condition, who then advised them to shift him to Amritsar hospital. Then they took him to Amritsar where he was got admitted in Nayyar Hospital and some tests were got done. Reports of Ravi Hospital were also checked and on seeing the same, the doctor of Nayyar Hospital told them that operation of Amarjit Singh had been done wrongly as his sugar level was high. He also told them that even his BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -4- operation was also not required. Amarjit Singh had expired in Nayyar Hospital on 7.6.2001. Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh operated upon Amarjit Singh in a haste just to extract money from them. He was also having knowledge at that time that this patient was suffering from sugar. Even his sugar test was got done and his sugar at that time was detected as 383, which is normally required to be 120. The above-said Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh also did not get the consent of any relative or legal heir of Amarjit Singh before conducting operation upon him.
3. On receipt of above-said application, bed head tickets from both the hospitals i.e. Ravi Hospital, Batala and Dr.H.R. Nayyar Memorial Hospital, Amritsar and other medical records were taken into police possession. Legal opinion was also sought. Thereafter, the instant case was registered against the above-said doctor (hereinafter to be referred as an accused in short). Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, challan in this case was presented in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, Batala who further committed this case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for trial after making compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Finding a prima-facie case under Section 304, IPC, against the accused, he was charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -5- seven witnesses before the learned trial Court.
6. Then the accused was duly examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Entire incriminating evidence as brought on the file against him was put to him, which was denied by him entirely. Further he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. He has also taken the plea that he is qualified as MBBS and MS Surgery, besides, FICS (Fellow of the International College of Surgeons). He further pleaded that he is in medical profession since 1983 and served in the cadre of PCMS for 12 years. He also officiated as Senior Medical Officer and Surgical Specialist in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur for two years. He is running private hospital for the last about 5-6 years. He has done thousands of operations during his professional career.
It was further pleaded that deceased Amarjit Singh was alcoholic and drug addict who had been coming to his hospital earlier also for treatment. On 3.6.2001 said Amarjit Singh came to him with Kuldip Singh who was working as Radiographer in his hospital. They were also accompanied by Bhupinder Singh who claimed himself to be the brother of Amarjit Singh. After examining this patient which included sugar tests, blood tests, he applied drip under insulin care and waited for about six hours during which he was kept under observation and sugar level was brought down. Antibiotics were also given to him and his x-ray and ultrasound was also done. Early operation was mandatory for various reasons because the appendicitis had to be operated early to avoid possibility of its bursting and other complications. According to the medical teachings and text books, such an operation has to be done within BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -6- 24 to 36 hours. He further pleaded that he charged only Rs.4,050/- inclusive everything. The consent for operation of Bhupinder Singh who accompanied the patient was also obtained before operating upon him. The last condition of the patient before he left the hospital was uneasiness and suspicion of jaundice (may be due to alcoholic hepatitis) which could lead to septicemia.
He further pleaded that after a few days 2/3 persons approached him in his hospital and demanded Rs.1 lakh as compensation otherwise they threatened that they would report the matter to the police. He refused to be blackmailed and hence this case was registered against him.
7. In his defence he also examined DW1 Dr. P.S. Bedi, Professor of Surgery Department Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar.
8. The trial Court after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and going through the record held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and convicted him accordingly vide the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 8.4.2003.
9. Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved against this judgment and order of sentence has come up in the instant appeal. Record of the learned trial Court was also requisitioned.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -7- impugned judgment is not tenable in the eyes of law being contrary to the law on the point and facts on the file. It is further his submission that there was no criminal intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of Amarjit Singh (since deceased). The appellant had taken all precautionary measures before conducting operation upon him. The patient was drug addict and alcoholic and as such he was feeling uneasy and difficult due to drug withdrawal symptom. He was also taken away from the hospital of the appellant against medical advise without obtaining discharge slip and further his journey from Batala to Amritsar was not free from risk. Then it is further his submission that there are several infirmities in the statements of material witnesses i.e. PW3 Sarabjit Singh and PW4 Amanbir Singh, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the same properly while recording the impugned judgment. Then the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the unrebutted statement of DW1 Dr.P.S. Bedi who had supported the version that patient was rightly operated upon by the appellant by taking all the precautions. Then he has also submitted that the impugned judgment is merely based on surmises and conjectures and the approach of learned trial Court in recording the same is totally perverse. The entire case as set up by the prosecution is an abuse of process of law to victimize and harass the appellant for extraneous considerations.
12. But on the other hand, learned State counsel has denied the above-said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and has contended that judgment passed by the learned trial Court is tenable in the eyes of law being based on the evidence as BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -8- available on the record. It is further his contention that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of both the parties from all the angles and has rightly come to the conclusion to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC.
13. As per the record, the learned trial Court while holding the accused guilty in this case has relied upon the fact that the patient was operated upon when he was having high blood sugar i.e. 383. In order to reach at this conclusion the learned trial Court had mainly relied upon prescription slip Ex.DC of Ravi Hospital, Batala. Then the appellant had operated upon the patient in a haste on the same day i.e. on 3.6.2001 when he was brought to his hospital for medical check-up despite the fact that he was having high blood sugar at that time. Then the learned trial Court held that it was a case of resolving appendicitis which could have been treated upon by providing treatment to the patient by way of medicines and in that eventuality the operation of the patient could have been avoided. Then the learned trial Court had relied upon the attested copy of report of Asia Diagnostic Amritsar dated 10.6.2001. Then the appellant after conducting the operation upon the patient had gone to Amritsar and that he was not present in the hospital, when the problem was developed to the patient during night hours. Then the plea of the appellant that the patient was a drug addict and alcoholic was not established on the file since no material had come on the record to support the same.
14. The prosecution had examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses during the trial. PW1 Jasbir Kaur was working in Ravi BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -9- Hospital, Batala on 3.6.2001. She has proved the entry regarding the admission of patient Amarjit Singh in the said hospital on dated 3.6.2001 made in the relevant register, the photocopy of which is Ex.PA.
PW2 Surinder Kumar was working as Accounts Officer in the said hospital on the relevant date. He has stated that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid in advance and thereafter another amount of Rs.2,050/- was paid after the operation of Amarjit Singh. He has produced the original bill book in this regard, the correct attested copy of the same is Ex.PB.
PW5 Sukhjinder Kaur, ANM, Ravi Hospital, Batala has proved one document pertaining to the admission of patient in Ravi Hospital as indoor patient bearing the signatures of Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh, which is Ex.PD.
PW3 Sarabjit Singh as per the case of the prosecution was accompanying Amanbir Singh while they were going towards Amritsar on 3.6.2001. When they reached at Batala bus-stand in the morning, there they met Amarjit Singh who was his brother-in-law going in a car along with his driver Ajit Singh. The said Amarjit Singh told them that he was going for check-up to Ravi Hospital, Aliwal Road, Batala since he was having severe pain in his stomach/abdomen. Accordingly, they (Sarabjit Singh and Amanbir Singh) accompanied him to said hospital where he was checked by Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh and found that he (Amarjit Singh) was suffering either from appendicitis or some kidney problem. Further, he had stated the facts as narrated by him in his application Ex.PC which he had moved before the police for taking action against the accused on BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -10- the plea that he was rash and negligent in performing operation upon Amarjit Singh (since deceased) which resulted into his death. , PW4 Amanbir Singh corroborated PW3 Sarabjit Singh regarding the prosecution version.
PW6 Inspector Balwinder Singh was the Investigating Officer of this case. He had stated that on receipt of application Ex.PC on 13.6.2001, he recorded statement of Sarabjit Singh. Further, on receiving legal opinion on 19.6.2001, FIR Ex.PE under Section 304-A, IPC was registered by ASI Jagdish Raj. Further, he took into possession record of Nayyar Hospital vide application Ex.PF. Then he also took into possession the relevant record of Ravi Hospital, Batala vide memo Ex.PG. Then he also proved recovery memo Ex.PK vide which papers regarding admission of the patient i.e. indoor and discharge papers were taken into police possession. Then he further deposed that later on vide rapat dated 20.6.2001 Ex.PL offence under Section 304, IPC, was added in this case.
DW1 Dr. P.S. Bedi had stated that the appellant had rightly diagnosed the case of the patient and had operated upon him properly by taking all the precautionary measures. Even blood sugar of patient was controlled by giving insulin. He had supported the defence version for all intents and purposes.
15. Basic version of the prosecution is that patient Amarjit Singh was having high blood sugar i.e. 383 at the time of operation and that the appellant had conducted operation upon him in a haste rashly and negligently. But this plea of prosecution is not established on record for BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -11- the reason that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove the same during the trial. The learned trial Court as above-said in order to hold the appellant in this case guilty has relied upon the prescription slip Ex.DC which has come on the record in the cross-examination of PW5 Sukhjinder Kaur, ANM, Ravi Hospital, Batala. It also manifests that prosecution had tried to conceal this document by not bringing the same on record in the examination-in-chief of any of the PWs. Then it has come in the statements of PW3 and PW4 that they took the patient to the hospital of the appellant on 3.6.2001 in the morning. Then it has also come in the cross-examination of PW3 Sarabjit Singh that patient was operated upon at about 2:00 p.m.. Then, PW1 Jasbir Kaur has stated that operation of Amarjit Singh was conducted at 4:00 p.m. Then it is also in her cross-examination that the said patient had come to their hospital on 3.6.2001 at about 8:30 A.M. and that he was checked by the doctor at 9:00 A.M. So as such the operation of the patient was conducted around 3:00/4:00 p.m. So there was a gap of about 5-6 hours when the patient was checked by the appellant for first time and when he was operated upon regarding the problem of appendicitis. Ex.DC also shows that all the relevant tests i.e. HB, TLC, DLC, BT CT, ECG and blood sugar were conducted before the operation of the patient, when he was brought to the hospital of the appellant for his medical check-up and that too before his alleged operation. Then it is also to be noted that after the medical check- up of the patient, the doctor diagnosed him to be a patient of appendicitis in which case the patient is operated upon immediately without any delay in order to avoid the possibility of its bursting and other complications. BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -12-
16. Then it is specific plea of the appellant that he applied insulin by way of injection to the patient beside the other treatment given to him before his operation. He conducted operation upon him when all the tests were found to be normal. So as such the above plea of the prosecution that the appellant had operated upon the patient in a haste and without controlling his blood sugar and without conducting the required tests before the operation is held to be not tenable.
17. Then it has come in the statement of PW3 Sarabjit Singh recorded in the Court and as well as in his application Ex.PC that doctor of Nayyar hospital, Amritsar had told them that operation of the patient has been done by the appellant wrongly, but the prosecution has not examined any doctor of the said hospital or any of employee of this hospital to prove the said plea. It has come in the statement of PW6 Inspector Balwinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, that he took into possession the relevant record of the said hospital. The prosecution had neither cited any of the doctor/official of this hospital as a witness in this case nor it had examined any of them for the reasons best known to it. So the above plea of the prosecution has also remained unestablished on the record. Even it has come in the cross-examination of PW1 Jasbir Kaur that before the operation of the patient the tests of HB, TLC, DLC, BT CD and urine and ultrasound were got conducted and the patient was given insulin cover as he was suffering from sugar.
18. Then it was the defence version that patient Amarjit Singh was a drug addict and alcoholic and was visiting the hospital of the appellant prior to this incident also. This fact has clearly been stated by BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -13- PW1 Jasbir Kaur in her cross-examination wherein she has stated that patient used to come their hospital earlier also due to sugar and he was a drug addict and alcoholic. So the fact that the patient was drug addict and alcoholic is also clearly established on the file when the prosecution own witness has been stating so.
19. Then there is nothing on the file to say that the appellant had demanded/charged any excess money from the complainant party for conducting operation upon Amarjit Singh(since deceased) In this regard, PW2 Surinder Kumar produced the bill book of the hospital of the appellant and proved the photocopy of the relevant entry Ex.PB, which shows that a sum of Rs.4,050/- was charged from the patient on account of his treatment and operation conducted in the hospital of appellant. If the appellant had gone to Amritsar after conducting operation upon the patient and was not found available during night time to check him, then the same cannot be held to be a case of gross negligence on the part of the appellant in order to hold him guilty for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC.
20. Then the prosecution in this case has not examined any of the doctor or medical expert in order to ascertain that appellant was rash and negligent while conducting the operation upon the patient or to check all the relevant record of the hospital of the appellant. So for want of this expert opinion, it is difficult to conclude that the alleged charge against the appellant has been proved/established on the file. On the other hand, DW1 Dr. P.S. Bedi had appeared in this case in order to support the defence version that the alleged operation upon the patient by the BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -14- appellant was rightly performed and the appellant had taken all the precautionary measures before operating the patient. This witness was posted as Professor and Head of Department of Medical College, Amritsar and he had experience of more than 31 years at the relevant time. A person who holds such a responsible post in a Government Department will not depose falsely in favour of any person in order to save him from the clutches of law without any reason. Then it has also come in his cross-examination that high level sugar can be controlled within 1 to 2 hours by giving injections intravenously.
21. Then it has also come on the record that patient had left the hospital of the appellant against medical advise. He was taken to Amritsar from Batala which is a journey of about 35 kms. which could also prove fatal to any patient who had already undergone operation for the problem of appendicitis. Then the patient had left the hospital of appellant on 4.6.2001 and had died in Nayyar Hospital at Amritsar on 7.6.2001 i.e. 3 days after leaving the hospital of appellant.
22. Even if the patient was found to be a case of resolving appendicitis at Amritsar during test, even then the appellant cannot be said to be wrong while diagnosing the patient as a case of appendicitis. At the most it can be said to be a case of wrong judgment and not a case of any gross negligence on his part.
23. Now let us see this case from the legal point of view. Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab and another, AIR 2005 (SC) 3180(1) has held as under:-
Negligence in the context of medical profession BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -15- necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or on accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -16- arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of incident at which it is suggested it should have been used.........
A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of the person incharge of the patient if the patient is not in position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -17- failure.........
The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law, but cannot form the basis of prosecution.........
The word "gross" has not been used in S. 304-A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be 'gross'. The expression 'rash and negligent act' as occurring in S. 304-A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word 'grossly'........ We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefers recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-787-SB-2003 -18- compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against.
24. The principles laid down in Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab case(supra) are further followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as Martin Versus Mohd. Ishfaq, 2009(3) SCC 1 and A.S.V. Narayanan Rao Versus Ratnamala and another, 2013(1) SCC 741.
25. Then in this case consent of Bhupinder Singh who was allegedly accompanying the patient was obtained vide document Ex.DA before operating upon the patient. This fact has been clearly stated in the cross-examination of prosecution's own witness, PW-1 Jasbir Kaur. So the plea of prosecution that consent of any of relatives before conducting operation upon patient was not taken is also not tenable.
26. In the light of the above discussion and the principles laid down in the case laws titled Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab, Martin Versus Mohd. Ishfaq and A.S.V. Narayanan Rao Versus Ratnamala and another cited (supra), the present appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 8.4.2003 are set aside, and consequently the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A IPC. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by the appellant-accused and surety shall stand discharged.
(GURMIT RAM) JUDGE November 29th, 2014 Brij
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes BRIJ MOHAN 2014.12.17 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh