JUDGMENT - SUKUMARAN K., J.:—This writ petition questions a Coroner's action. The Coroner has directed the petitioners to appear before him for the purpose of recording their statements. A direction of that nature is not per se an infliction of injury. The petitioners mount their attack from grounds of conscientious objection and constitutional provisions. The short question for consideration of this Court is whether the resistance has the support of law or legal principles.

2. It was a long time back—on 5th April, 1983—that Miss Prema Jeevandas died. Admittedly, she was possessed of fabulous fortunes. That circumstance, helpful during the life time of the person, can create complications after his or her worldly exit. It happened in the present case.

3. The deceased was not an invalid confined to bed for a long time. She was moving around with reasonable agility consistent with her advanced age. She had a fall in her house. At any rate, that was how the hospital authorities noted the case history. She did not linger long in the hospital room. She closed her eyes forever on 5th April, 1983.

4. The Coroner appointed under the Coroners Act, 1814, was informed by the 3rd respondent on 10-6-1983 about the death and about a suspected foul play. Thereafter it is a serious responsibility on the part of the Coroner to decide upon the future course of action. He called for the medical record and caused an enquiry to be made through the police. On perusal of Hospital records and report of the police enquiry, he was convinced that the circumstances under which the death occurred were 'rather unusual' and that an inquest should be held. The facts were reported to the Government and Government by order dated 20-7-1984 directed the Coroner to conduct an inquest.

The Coroner thought of hearing the parties before he took a definite step. According to him, it was not due to compulsion of any legal provision but the motivation for demonstrating fair play or complying with the principles of natural justice. The parties who received notice raised a preliminary objection regarding the Coroner's jurisdiction to hold the inquest.

5. That led to the dilatoriness of the proceedings—a course totally inconsistent with the origin and evolution of the ancient office of Coroner. The Coroner ultimately passed an order on 19-4-1985.

6. The Coroner adverted to sections 8 and 9 of the Act, as amended by the Maharashtra State Legislature. He observed that the dead body was not available for view as it was cremated. It was accordingly noted that section 8-A was the relevant section which could be invoked. He adverted to the requirements of section 8. The medical records were scrutinised by him, and considered carefully. He observed:

“No investigations appear to have been made to confirm the Diagnosis of Coronary infarct.”

Nor was there any mention of the line of treatment anywhere in the records, according to him. Ultimately he concluded that the result of death remained unexplained and consequently the provisions of section 9 were attracted. He also took the view that the facts of the case “squarely fit in with the provisions of section 8 of the Act which conceives of cause of sudden death of which the cause is unknown. So disposal of the dead body in such cases is in contravention of the Coroner's Act.”

7. That order was challenged in a writ petition—Writ Petition No. 1774 of 1985 before this Court by one of the Executors.

8. Nice questions of law were paraded before the Constitutional Court. Rule was issued. The case pended. Time did not tarry. A decade later, the Executor had his exit from the scene. No one else could be seen interested in pursuing that case. The Court was left with no alternate than to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

9. The dismissal of the writ petition removed the block in the way of Coroner's action. He then issued the impugned notice. If was then the turn of the petitioners to raise the objection over again by the present writ pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document