Criminal Revision No. 1867 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1867 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Joginder Singh .. Petitioner v. Dr. Rajiv Kumar Majoomdar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The complainant has approached this Court challenging the acquittal of the respondents in a case registered against them under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Application for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the petition has also been filed. Brief facts are that Mrs. Jasbir Kaur wife of Joginder Singh, resident of Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh was admitted in Sunflag Hospital, Faridabad on 6.12.1996 for treatment of kidney stone. Operation was conducted on 16.12.1996. Later on, another operation was also conducted. Anesthesia was applied, on account of which the patient developed serious problem and died. Alleging negligence, FIR was got registered by the petitioner and the challan was presented. After trial, the respondents were acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court had constituted a Committee, consisting of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Civil Surgeon and other members, which had opined that it was a case of negligence, but still that report has not been given due weightage by the learned court below. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the argument raised. It is undisputed position on record that only medical expert in the Committee was Civil Surgeon. Though the report was prepared by the Committee, but still the Civil Surgeon never appeared in the Court to produce and prove the report and also face cross-examination for the findings recorded in that report regarding negligence of the respondents. Once that is so, in my opinion, no Criminal Revision No. 1867 of 2007 [2] illegality has been committed by the learned court below in acquitting the respondents. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.7.2009 mk