LexAMAL KUMAR J HA versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2016] 2 S.C.R. I 060 AMAL KUMAR J HA v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 396 of2016) B APRIL 26, 20 I 6 c [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - ss. 17 3 and ./82 - Protection from prosecution without sanction - Availability of - Prosecution of doctor-in-charge of Primary Health Centre - u!s. 30./A !PC - Alleging him for not providing Government Vehicle for shifting the patient from Primary Health Centre to Disrl'ict Hospital - Application u!s . ./82 for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that he could not have been prosecuted without sanction uls. 197 - Dismissed - On appeal, held: The act of the accused was D intrinsically concerned with discharge of his official duty - Hence protection u!s. 197 from prosecution was ai,ailable to him - Therefore, he can be prosecuted only when sanction is granted - Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 A. E Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. In present case, the accused was acting iu discharge of his official duty when he refused to provide the official vehicle. Thus, the omission complained of, due to which offence is stated to have been committed, was intrinsically connected with discharge of official duty of the appellant, as such the protection u/s. 197 Cr.PC from prosecution without sanction of the competent authority, is available to the appellant. Thus, he could not have been prosecuted without sanction. It would be for the competent authority to consider the question of grant of sanction in accordance with law. In case sanction is granted, only G then the appellant can be prosecuted and not otherwise. [Paras 5 and 12] [1063-B; 1073-E-F] Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay· 1955 (1) SCR 1177; Matajog Dobey v. HC. Bhari 1955 (2) SCR 925; Bhappa Singh v. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. H 1981 (Supp) SCC 12; State of Maharashtra v. Dr. 1060 AMAL KUMAR JHA v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH Budhikota Subbarao 1993 (3) SCC 339: 1993 (2) SCR 311; State of HP. v. MP. Gupta 2004 (2) SCC 349: 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004 (8) SCC 40: 2004 (3) SCR 504; K. Kalimuthu 1: State by DSP 2005 (4) SCC 512: 2005 (3) SCR 1; Manorama Tiwari & Ors. v. Surendra Nath Rai 2016 (1) SCC 594:2015 (9) SCR 436; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheet/a Sahai & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 617:2009 (12) SCR 1048 ~relied on. Case Law Reference 1955 (1) SCR 1177 relied on Paras 19~5. (2) SCR 925 relied on Para6 1981 (Supp) sec 12 relied on Para7 19~3. (2) SCR 311 relied on Para8 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541 relied on Para9 201)4 (3) SCR 504 relied on Para 10 2005 (3) SCR 1 relied on Para 11 2015 (9) SCR 436 relied on Para 12 2009 (12) SCR 1048 relied on Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 396 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2011 of the High Court ofChhatisgarh at Bilaspur in M. Cr. C. No. 2140 of2002. Suresh C. Gupta, Birendra Kumar Mishra, Ms. Poonam A., Praneet 1061 A B c D E Ranjan,Advs. fortheAppellant. F Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The appeal arises out of the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby affirming the order dated 29.6.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant for discharge on the ground of requirement of sanction to prosecute under section 197(1) Cr.P.C. G H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H 3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was in-charge of Patthalgaon Hospital, District Raigad where on 1.1.1995 L.T.D. operation of Runiabai was conducted by Dr. A.M. Gupta. Thereafter she was sent home. As Runiabai vomited Dr. A.M. Gupta was approached. He sent one Aklu Ram to administer some treatment. However on 2.2.1995 she was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Patthalgaon where she was admitted and died at 2 p.m. Her post mortem was conducted. After 25 days, First Information Report was lodged and ultimately Police filed · chargesheet under section 304-A !PC on 16. l 0.1996 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, as against appellantA.K. Jha, Dr. A.M. Gupta and Aklu Ram. Charges under section 304-A were framed as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.