IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2995 of 2011 -------------------------------- CC.1478/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: DR.RAJMOHAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, AISWARYA GARDENS, KOORKENCHERY P.O., THRISSUR-680007. BY SR.ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN CRMC 2995/2011 ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 1478/2008 BEFORE JFCM CHAVAKKAD ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF XPERT PANEL ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF APEX BODY ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 12.7.2011 /TRUE COPY/ N.K.Balakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2995 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 ORDER Petitioner was the Assistant Surgeon, Government Taluk Hospital, Chavakkad, who attended the delivery of Reena. The delivery was on 9.6.2001. Because of some complications, she died on 10.6.2001 at 8.20 p.m. A complaint was lodged alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that circular dated 17.1.2004 was issued by Government of Kerala as Circular No.41801/SSB3/2000/Home. It shows that after the registration of the criminal case, Investigating Officer has to refer the case to an expert panel. Learned counsel submits that the expert panel did not consider the issue properly and Annexure-A2 report was given to the Investigating Officer attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner. As against the same, an appeal was preferred to the Apex Body. It considered the issue and found CRMC 2995/2011 2 that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure-A3 report. The Apex Body consisted of Director of Health Services, Director General of Prosecutions, Director of Medical Education and Additional Director of Health Services. Their opinion is that “post operative proper management was given to the patient and patient had sudden dyspnoea and cardiac arrest. Possible resuscitative measures which was available at that institution was given to the patient. So, there is no negligence in treating the patient from the doctor's side.” 3. In the light of the final opinion given by the Apex Body, it has to be found that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. As such, no prosecution can be had against the petitioner. In the light of what is stated above, proceedings initiated against the petitioner has to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C.No.1478/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad is quashed. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv