( 1 ) PROFESSOR (Dr.) Sukumar Mukherjee and Professor (Dr.) Baidyanath haider were found guilty under section 304a of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days by the judgment and order dated 29. 5. 2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in Complaint Case No. C- 3882 of 1998. The learned Magistrate, however, found professor (Dr. .) Abani roychowdhury not guilty under section 304a of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, acquitted him.

( 2 ) AGAINST the said order, professor Mukherjee filed Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002 and professor Haider filed Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, whereas the complainant, Mr. Malay Kumar ganguly, on the other hand, filed a revisional application being C. R. R. No. 1856 of 2002 for enhancement of the punishment inflicted upon professor Mukherjee and professor Haider. The complainant also filed another application under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being CRM No. 3045 of 2002 praying for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of professor roychowdhury. This application was assigned to this Court and by an order dated 19. 8. 2002, the leave was granted to file the appeal. The appeal was actually filed on 29. 8. 2002. The said appeal was also assigned to this Court and by an order dated 3. 10. 2002 the appeal was admitted for hearing and numbered as c. R. A. No. 295 of 2002.

( 3 ) MEANWHILE the complainant, Mr. Malay Kumar Ganguly filed two separate applications (CRR 22 of 2002 and CRR 23 of 2002) praying for transfer of both the appeals from the Sessions Court to this Court mainly on the ground that the application for enhancement of sentence and the appeal against acquittal were assigned to this Court for final decision.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel of all the parties and keeping in view the nature of the case, problems involved and the law points indicated, both the appeals pending before the learned Sessions Court were directed to be transferred to this Court on 20. 2. 2003 by invoking power under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, both the appeals were transferred to this Court and were re-numbered as CRA No. 83 of 2003 and cra No. 84 o f 2003.

( 5 ) SINCE all these four matters arose out of the judgment and order dated 29. 5. 2002 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on consent of the learned counsel of all the sides, those were taken for hearing one after the other. The learned counsel of all the sides argued the matter in accordance with the law one after the other and ultimately, concluded their respective argument. On completion of such argument, the learned Counsel of all the sides submitted their respective Written Notes of Argument to this Court. So by this judgment, all these four matters are going to be decided and accordingly, this judgment do govern the fate of all these four matters, namely, CRA No. 83 of 2003, CRA no. 84 of 2003, CRR No. 1856 of 2002 and CRA No. 295 of 2002.

( 6 ) ONE Malay Kumar Ganguly being the constituted attorney of Dr. Kunal saha, at present a citizen of USA, filed a complaint before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 17. 11. 1998 alleging, inter alia, that his brother- in-law Dr. Kunal Saha with his wife, Anuradha Saha aged about 36 years came to Mumbai on 24. 3. 98 from USA and thereafter, reached Calcutta on 1st april, 1998 for attending the marriage ceremony of her brother. Anuradha @ anu developed sore throat accompanied with low grade fever around 03. 4. 1998 and on 17th April, 1998, she developed high fever with some signs of upper respiratory track infection. Her blood was tested and report indicated possible viral infection. She developed fever on 25th April, 1998 followed by skm rash coming out for the first time on