1. econd respondent is a Doctor employed in Government service and third respondent is a private medical practitioner running a hospital. They were charge-sheeted and tried in C. C No. 203 of 1987 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cochin for an offence punishable under S.304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. Revision is against the order allowing the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the prosecution. Petitioner is the defacto complainant and husband of the deceased.

2. he circumstances under which respondents 2 and 3 happened to be prosecuted are these. Mala, wife of the petitioner, became pregnant and she was taken to the second respondent on 24-2-1983 for consultation and prenatal treatment. That was during the second month of her pregnancy. Oh examination second respondent diagonised that Mala had Ventricular Septal defect. But petitioner or Mala were not informed of it or directed to take her for examination by a Cardiologist. Treatment by second respondent continued till 21-9-1983, on which day she gave birth to a cyanosed baby and she also died. Delivery was in