ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS versus KUNAL SAHA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 227 
ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS 
v. 
KUNAL SAHA AND ANOTHER 
(Crirnina1Appea1No.1163of2016) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 201, 120-B and 219 - Death of 
complainant's wife due to medical negligence - Negligence being 
of civil nature, award of damages - Criminal complaint against the 
members of the Inquiry Committee of State Medical Council 
including the appellants - Allegation that they committed offence 
u!s 2011120-B by entering into conspiracy to save delinquent 
doctors - Mep1bers of the Committee ignored the report of the experts 
and helped the delinquent doctors to go scot-free - Petition u!s. 
482 by appellants seeking quashing of the proceedings - Dismissed 
by High Court - On appeal, held: Approach of the High Court was 
unsustainable - Matter not dealt in proper perspective - Even if 
the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and at their face 
value, it would not constitute offence u!s. 201 and s. 120-B -
Allegations contained in the complaint do not make out any case u/ 
s. 201 - Conspiracy, if at all, was to save the delinque11t doctors in 
disciplinary proceedings taken against them, thus, s.1208 not 
applicable - Provisions of s. 219 also does not apply since the 
departmental proceedings into the report given by the Committee 
cannot be treated as 'judicial proceedings' -Also in the departmental 
proceedings, evidence could not be or would not have been taken 
on oath. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The approach of the High Court is unsustainable 
in law and it has committed grave error in not dealing with the 
matter in proper perspective. Even if the allegations in the 
complaint are taken as true and at their face value, it would not 
constitute offence under section 201 and section 120-B IPC. 
[Paras 11, 12) [232-H; 233-A-B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
1.2 An offence under section 201 would be treated to have 
been committed when a person, knowing or having reason to 
H 
. 227 
228 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 9 S.C.R. 
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence 
of the commission of that offence to disappear. What is relevant 
is that the evidence which is made to disappear relates to the 
commission of the offence. In the instant case, the allegations 
against the delinquent doctors of their negligence were of a much 
prior date. The complainant had sought to make out a case that 
the opinions of the four experts which were taken by the 
Committee itself were not reflected in the report that was 
submitted and it is this 'evidence' which was made to disappear 
by the members of the Inquiry Committee. Obviously, it is not a 
kind of evidence that is referred to under Section 201 IPC. Thus, 
on a plain reading of this provision, the allegations contained in 
the complaint do not make out any case of committing an offence 
under Section 201 IPC. [Para 14) [233-G-H; 234-A-C] 
1.3 There is a charge of conspiracy as well. Criminal 
conspiracy that is referred to and defined under Section 120A 
IPC has to be in furtherance of committing an offence punishable 
with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a 
term of two years or upwards etc. The alleged conspiracy even 
as per the complaint was not to commit any of the offences as 
mentioned. As per the complainant himself, the so-called 
conspiracy, if at all, was to save the delinquent doctors in 
disciplinary proceedings taken against them. This provision also, 
therefore, has no application. [Paras 15, 16) [234-C, F-G] 
1.4 The counsel appearing for the complainant submitted 
that the allegations contained in the complaint would constitute 
an offence punishable under Section 219 IPC. Though no such 
provision is mentioned in the complaint, the counsel is right that 
the allegations made in the complaint may constitute an offence 
under section 219 and mere non-mentioning of the said provision 
in the complaint would not make any difference. It cannot be 
understood as to how even the provisions of Section 219 IPC 
G applies in the instant case. [Para 17) [234-G-H; 235-A-B] 
1.5 The ingredients of section 219 are: (1) the person 
charged is a public servant; (2) the said public servant corruptly 
or maliciously makes or pronounces any report, order, verdict, 
or decision which he knows to be contrary to law (3) such act is 
H to be done in any stage of a judicial proceedings. The departmental 
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.