Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3586
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Parveen Kumar Sareen - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 13691 of 2018
Decided On : 16-10-2018
R.S. Rai, Adv., Gautam Dutt, Adv., Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of expediting trials and concluded that amending the charge-sheet at a late stage would lead to a de-novo trial, contrary to the Supreme Court's intention.
Headnote:
Kidney Scam - Criminal Procedure Code - Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994 - 295-A, 371, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 18, 19, 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the infamous 'kidney scam' in the State of Punjab, where innocent persons were induced into parting with their kidneys in violation of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994. Two FIRs were lodged, one related to the illegal trade of human organs and the other to the death of a kidney donor due to lack of post-surgery medical treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for framing a single consolidated charge-sheet, citing that separate trials were warranted as the second incident could be segregated from the larger conspiracy. The court directed both cases to be clubbed and decided together, ensuring expedited proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether to frame a single consolidated charge-sheet for both FIRs or to proceed with separate trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'amalgamation' as merging of trials, which is desirable at initial stages to avoid multiplicity. It held that amending the charge-sheet at a late stage would virtually amount to holding a de-novo trial, contradicting the Supreme Court's intention to expedite proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to ensure both cases are clubbed and decided together, taking steps to minimize the accused's visits to court and expedite the proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - Petitioner, Dr. Parveen Kumar Sareen, who is one of the 13 accused facing trial in respect of two FIRs, the details of which are being stated below, being aggrieved by order dated 14.3.2018 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amristsar, dismissing his application filed under section 216 and 217 of Cr.P.C., seeking amendment of the charge-sheet, has challenged the same by way of filing present petition.
2. The matter arises out of the infamous 'kidney scam', which rocked State of Punjab about 15 years back leading to lodging of two FIRs. A gist of the said a FIRs may be stated as follows:
(i) F.I.R. No. 101 dated 21.9.2002, P.S. 'D' Division, Amritsar under section 295-A, 371, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and under section 18, 19 and 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994 : This FIR was lodged when it came to light that a trade of human organs was going on in Amritsar, wherein innocent persons were induced into parting with their kidneys in lieu of some amount and which used to be sold at hefty prices to rich patients. The entire scam was being run by some doctors in connivance with mediators/touts. Consequently, the FIR was lodged with general allegations as regards the illegal trade of human organs in violation of the provisions of Transportation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and also for committing various other offences under IPC. Thirteen accused are facing trial in this case.
(ii) F.I.R. No. 25 dated 1.2.2003 P.S. Civil lines Amritsar under section 363, 364, 302, 201, 465, 120-B IPC and under section 18, 19 and 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994 :
During the course of investigation of aforesaid F.I.R. No.101 dated 21.9.2002, it surfaced that in the year 2003, one Mulkh Raj Goel, whose both the kidneys had failed had contacted 'Kakkar Hospital' at Amritsar, where a deal was struck for providing a kidney to him for Rs. 2.5 lakhs of a donor namely Sudesh Kumar. It transpired that said Sudesh Kumar was a labourer whose kidney was taken out for a petty amount and was transplanted in the body of Mulkh Raj Goel. However Sudesh donor was not provided adequate post-extraction treatment and consequently he expired. Sh. Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh, an IPS officer posted in Amritsar, on getting to know about the said facts got the aforesaid FIR No.25 dated 1.2.2003 registered u/s 366,364,302,201,465,120-B IPC and u/s 18,19 and 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, pertaining to the specific incident of death of Sudesh Kumar. Five accused are facing trial in this case who are also arrayed as accused in FIR 101 dated 21.9.2002.
3. The aforesaid matters were investigated and upon filing of final reports against the accused, charges were framed against the accused in both the cases. The petitioner had moved an application seeking his discharge in the FIR No. 25 1.2.2003 but the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2.8.2004 (Annexure P-6) which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 2169 of 2004 in this Court which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure P-8). Aggrieved with dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1844 of 2011, but Hon'ble the Apex Court upheld the framing of charges vide order dated 2.11.2017, while being aware that it was a case of two separate trials. The relevant observations recorded therein read as under:
3. " ...... ...... ........ ...... The charges framed in both the Sessions Cases are identical and the said exercise appears to have been committed due to inadvertence, we do not see how the aforesaid act on the part of the Court has caused any prejudice to the accused. The allegations against the appellant are clear and specific and there would be no occasion for this Court to hold that the order refusing discharge in any way suffers from any legal infirmity. .... .....
