Back
2008(1) Supreme 397
Supreme Court of india
G.P. Mathur & Aftab Alam, JJ.
State of Maharashtra — Petitioner
versus
Devahari Devasingh Pawar & Others — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 122 of 2008
Decided on : 18-01-2008
2000(8) SCC 500, Distinguished.
(2006) 1 SCC 294, Relied upon.
Facts of the case:-
1.Accused respondents doctors, blood transfusion officer and technicians of government medical college and hospital were prosecuted herein in the instant case on charges of supplying HIV contaminated blood to said hospital by its blood bank. Cognizance was taken by Magistrate under Sections 269, 201 and 204 r\w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 18(a)(i) r\w Section 27 and 17-A & C of Drugs Act against seven accused who summoned them to face trial. Petition thereagainst was filed by accused for quashing proceedings on plea that prosecution had not produced sanction from State Government. Magistrate allowing petition quashed proceedings of case. Revision thereagainst was allowed by sessions judge setting aside order of Trial Court directing it to proceed with Trial leaving question of sanction open to be adjudicated at time of conclusion of Trial. On Revision Application by Accused Respondents, High Court quashed proceedings on ground that prosecution had not produced order of sanction from State Government before Trial Court relying upon decision in Abdul Wahab Ansari Vs. State of Bihar.
2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the court :
The Court relying upon decision in Romesh Lal Jain Vs. Naginder Singh Rana and others Court held that whereas an order of sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required to be obtained when offence complained of against public servant is attributable to discharge of his public duty or has a direct nexus therewith, but same would not be necessary when offence complained of has nothing to do with same. Held incomprehensible how tampering with entries made in official registers, tearing of pages from different official registers and stowing them away in one’s house could be related to discharge of official duties. Not even slightest doubt that allegations made against accused related to acts that had no nexus or connection to discharge of their official duties. Hence, prosecution of accused on those allegations had no need of any sanction under Section 197 of Code. Substantial part of cases against accused not required any sanction for their prosecution. Facts of the case not warranted any piecemeal quashing or discharge of the accused. Held appropriate and just that trial of accused should be allowed to proceed without any hindrance. Question of sanction for prosecution under Drugs Act left open to be decided by Trial Court at end of Trial. Order of High Court was set-aside and matter was remitted to trial Court. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Order
1.Leave granted.
2.Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel for Ku. Pradnya Sudhakar Phadnavis, respondent No. 3 and Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel for Dr. Prakashchandra, respondent No.7. None of the other respondents are represented before us despite service.
3.This appeal is directed against the order dated April 20, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 2004 and Criminal Application No. 87 of 2004 by which the High Court quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 48 of 1994 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on the ground that there was no sanction for prosecution of the accused (respondents before this Court) as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).
4.It came to light that HIV contaminated blood was supplied to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur by its blood bank and as a result, some patients who were given blood transfusion had tested HIV positive. After making some preliminary inquiry, the Drugs Inspector, Nagpur lodged a first information report with the police. The police investigation led to further charges of a serious nature coming to light. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that in the course of investigation it was found that entries in the registers maintained at the blood bank were tampered with and ‘corrections’ were made without any initials to certify those corrections. More seriously some pages were missing from the Donor Register and likewise some pages were torn off from the Issue Register for dates 10.4.1993 to 12.5.1993. Further investigation revealed that the pages from the official registers were torn by Dr. P.P. Sancheti (accused No. 1-respondent No. 7) who carried away those pages with him on his transfer on 2.6.1993. He did not return the torn pages despite a number of letters sent by the departmental authorities. After some effort, the police was able to find out accused No. 1-respondent No. 7 and in course of search of his house the documents, namely; pages from the Issue Register for dates 10.4.1993 to 12.5.1993 and pages from the Donor Register relating to blood units 2478 to 2510 were recovered.
5.Apart from the above allegations that prima facie constitute different offences including forgery, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, destruction of documents to prevent its production as evidence etc. punishable under the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’), several acts of omission and commission of culpable nature also came to light in the working of the blood bank. On conclusion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 201, 204 and 269/34 of I.P.C. Though the investigation also revealed interpolations in the official records, no charge-sheet was submitted for the offence of forgery.
6.It appears that the Drugs Inspector took the view that the acts of omission and commission in the working of the blood bank also gave rise to offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Drugs Act’). He, accordingly, filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Drugs Act for prosecuting the accused 1 to 7 (respondent Nos. 1 to 7) for offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 27 and 17-A & C of the Drugs Act.
7.Here, it needs to be stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint case (respondent Nos. 6 & 7) were doctors; accused No. 1-respondent No. 7 being the Blood Transfusion Officer and accused Nos. 3 to 7 (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) were technicians in the Government Medical College and Hospital.
8.On an application made by the Drugs Inspector, the complaint filed by him was amalgamated with the earlier police case and resultantly the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sectio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
