LexDALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS. versus JAGJIT SINGH ARORA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 59 DALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH ARORA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 506-508 of 2014) FEBRUARY 27, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] JUDGMENTS: A B Application for correction of judgment - Scope of - Petition c u/s 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings of a complaint case relating to medical negligence - Single Judge of High Court framing issue on the premise that patient died due to wrong treatment and medical negligence - Petition dismissed - Subsequently, on an application by complainant single Judge 0 issuing orders to correct the words "dead" and "death" in the judgment as "the brink of death" - Held: It cannot be said that single Judge was merely correcting an accidental omission or typographical error - By correcting the judgment, the very foundation and the issue formulated, lost its sanctity - Single E Judge cannot correct an issue which has been framed and answered - First issue framed is with regard to the "wrong treatment and consequential death of a patient" and it was that issue which was answered - Record does not contain any statement that the wife of complainant is no more - The entire F thought process of single Judge centered round on an incorrect premise that, due to gross negligence on the part of appellants, wife of complainant died - Further single Judge has expressed the opinion so expressively in the judgment that it practically forecloses all defences available to parties, who are supposed to face trial - Judgment as well as the subsequent G order would stand set aside - High Court directed to hear petition u/s 482 CrPC afresh- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 59 H 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A In a petition filed u/s 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings for offences punishable u/ss 420/467/ 468/ 471/326/120-8 IPC and s.15 of the Indian Medical Council Act arising out of a complaint of medical negligence, the single Judge of the High Court framed the issue on the B premise that the patient died due to wrong treatment and medical negligence, and dismissed the petition. The complainant filed a petition for correction of certain omission/typographical errors in the judgment. The single Judge passed an order directing the Registry to c make the correction, inter alia, that word "died" be read as "was brought to brink of death" and words 'dead' and 'death' be read as "the brink of death" Allowing the appeals, the Court D HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that the single Judge was merely correcting an accidental omission or typographical error. By correcting the judgment, the very foundation and the issue formulated, broken down and fell on the ground and the issue framed by the single E Judge, lost its sanctity. The single Judge cannot correct an issue which has been framed and answered. The first issue framed is with regard to the "wrong treatment and consequential death of a patient" and it was that issue which was answered. Therefore, the application preferred F by the respondents cannot be treated as an application for correcting accidental omission or typographical error, that too without notice to the appellants. This is a case of medical negligence. The record does not contain any statement that the wife of respondent No. 1 is no more. G The entire thought process of the single Judge centered round on an incorrect premise that, due to the gross negligence on the part of the appellants, the wife of respondent No. 1 died. [para 12-13] [68-C-F, G-H] 1.2 Further the single Judge has opined so H expressively in the judgment that it practically forecloses DALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH 61 ARORA & ORS. all the defences available to the parties, who are A supposed to face the trial. The single Judge, though ultimately indicated that the view is only a prima facie view, but a reading of the entire judgment, would show otherwise.The judgment cannot be sustained on any ground. Consequently, the judgment dated 16.11.2012 as B well as the subsequent order 11.2.2013 passed in the application of respondent no. 1, would stand set aside. The High Court is directed to rehear the petition u/s 482 CrPC afresh. [para 14] [69-A-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal C Appeal Nos. 506-508 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2012 and 11.02.2013 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. M-25733 of 201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.