1. This second round of revision has been preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No.1675 of 2011 of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kollam, challenging order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2387 of 2013.

2. The incident relates to the case had occurred on 14.12.2004, when a hapless young lady had taken the chance to have a medical consultation, that too casually, for her abdominal pain at the hospital in question. She walked in to the casualty for a consultation. The Doctor at the casualty had examined her and administrated Cyclopam injection and Digene gel and she was asked to go home. Thereafter the twist occurred, when she was further advised to meet the Surgeon also. As advised, she met the Surgeon. The Surgeon could not find anything to intervene; but advised her to consult the Gynecologist also. Then the victim met the Gynecologist. The Gynecologist suggested that there was some sort of urinary infection and she was administrated with Ampicillin injection, allegedly after taking the test dose. Immediately after the injection, she developed respiratory difficulties. Noting down the complications, the first petitioner, Doctor administrated Diazapam injection. Immediately, her condition worsened and she had to be connected to a ventilator. As there was no ventilator facility at the hospital, she was directed to be shifted to VSM Hospital, Mavelikkara where such a facility was available. By the time, she reached the hospital, it seems that she was almost dead. Her heart beat and pulse were not readable. Even though she was connected to the ventilator and medicines were administrated, she could not be resuscitated. Soon after, her death was declared.

3. As in the case of normal death, her dead body was taken to her house and it was buried. In the mean time, the defacto complainant, who is the mother of the victim, could smell rat about the gross negligence from the part of the doctors who had administrated medicines to her, she filed a complaint and the law was set in motion. The dead body was disinterred and autopsy was conducted. The matter was investigated by the local police at first. Dissatisfied with the snail pace of investigation by the local police, the defacto complainant approached this Court seeking a proper investigation, which has culminated in handing over the investigation to the Crime Branch.

4. The Crime Branch investigated the matter and filed a final report alleging an offence under Section 304 IPC. On committal to the Court of Session, the case was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Court. Petitioners filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P. seeking a discharge. The matter was heard under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge initially found that a charge under Section 304-A will alone lie and consequently by invoking the power under Section 228(1A) of Cr.P.C., the court below transferred the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagapplly. Dissatisfied with the findings entered by the court below in the said Crl.M.P., the petitioners preferred Crl.R.P. before this Court as Crl.R.P.296/2014. This Court, after hearing both sides, passed an order on 28.08.2014 thereby allowing the criminal revision and by setting aside the order impugned in it, by giving the following directions.

(a) The impugned order passed by the court below in Crl.M.P.No.2387 of 2013 will stand set aside, and the application for discharge will stand restored to files.

(b) The learned trial judge will reconsider the application for discharge, hear both sides in detail, examine the whole prosecution records as meant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and take decision afresh for one of the options available under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate judicious order.

(c) Crl.M.A. No.3677 of 2014 brought by the mother of the deceased will stand closed for the time being. In case, she makes an application for being heard in the court below,