LexDR. DILIP KUMAR DEKA AND ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. DILIP KUMAR DEKA AND ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .
. JI
.._
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
~
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
B
Judicial Strictures :
Accused in murder case-Police custody ordered-By virtue of Report
of two Doctors accused continued to stay at Hospital without Court's or- c
ders:-Pemiission Refused by CJM-Revision filed-Medical Board con-
stituted-Board came to the conclusion that accused did not have any major
illness-High Court Judge while dismissing the Revision Petition, made ce1~
tain remar'ks against the two Doctors for misuse of their official status and
that they were liable to be brought to book-On appeal for expunging the D
remarks, held: Nature of remarks cast a serious aspersion on the appellants
affecting their character and reputation and career also-Condemnation
-·
without giving them an opportunity of being heard was complete negation of
the fundamental principle of natural justice-Administrative Law-Natural
Justice.
E
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim, [1964) 2 SCR 363; !age Ram,
Inspector of Police & Anr. v. Hans Raj Midha, AIR (1972) SC 1140; R.K.
Lakshmanan v. A.K Srinivasan, AIR (1975) SC 1741; Niranjan Patnaik v.
Sashibhusan Kar & Anr., AIR (1986) SC 819 and Abani Kanti Ray v. State
of Orissa & Ors., [1995) 6 Scale 41, relied on.
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1699 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.95 of the Assam High
Court in C.R. No. 447 of 1995.
G
__.
P.K. Goswsami, Rajiv Mehta and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellants.
S.M. Chaudhary and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
H
763
764
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP.5S.C.R.
A
Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is for expunging certain remarks made by a learned
Judge of the Guwahati High Court against the two appellants herein,
namely, Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Dr. P.K. Baruah, who are attached to
B Mahendra Mohan Choudhary Hospital Guwahati ('MMCH' for short),
while disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by an accused in a
murder case. Facts and circumstances leading to the remarks are as under.
3. Over the murders of Mrs. Karabi Das and her niece Ms. Chandra
Rani Dharitri Das a case under Section 302 IPC was registered by Latasil
C Police Station on August 1, 1995. In connection with that case Smt. Geeta
Kalita and her husband Shri Bhagya Kalita were arrested on August 2,
1995; and on their production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Guwahati on the following day, (August 3, 1995) they were remanded to
the police custody for seven days on the prayer of the Investigating Officer.
D While in police custody Smt. Kalita complained of severe abdominal pain
in the night of August 8, 1995 and, therefore the police took her to MMCH.
There she was first treated by Dr. K.S. Dowerah and, under his s.dvice, was
admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient. On the following day the
appellant No. 1 examined her and diagnosed that she was suffering from
E
peptic ulcer and appendicitis. The appellant No. 1 then advised the Deputy
Superintendent of the hospital to transfer her to the Guwahati Medical
College Hospital ('GMCH' for short) as the facility for ultra sonography
was not available in their hospital. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent
wrote a letter to the Officer incharge of Latasil Police Station on August
F
9, 1995 requesting him to make security arrangements for shifting her to
GMCH. However, she was not removed to GMCH and, hence, continued
to be treated by the doctors of the MMCH including the two appellants.
4. On August 16, 1995, when it was brought to the notice of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, that without the order of
G the Court Smt. Kalita had been hospitalised, he passed an order calling for
an explanation from the Investigating Officer (IO) in that regard and
directed him to furnish the names of the Medical Officers who had treated
her. The Superintendent of MMCH was also directed to submit a detailed
report about the condition of Smt. Kalita by August 21, 1995. To comply
H with the said direction the Superintendent asked the appellants to submit
-
D. KR. DEKA v. STAIB
765
a detailed report of her medical examination and on the basis of the report A
so submitted, he sent his report to the learned Magistrate. On Perusal of
the report the learned Magistrate passed anotherExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.