Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—These two criminal revisions have been preferred against the orders dated 27.5.2010 and 24.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 1229 of 2008, State of U.P. v. Dr. Veena Agrawal. By order dated 24.10.2009, learned trial Court discharged the revisionist for the offence punishable under Sections 269, 270, 337, 338 IPC, but rejecting the prayer for discharge, directed framing of the charge under Section 304 IPC. The said order has been challenged in criminal revision No. 4952 of 2009. In pursuance of order dated 24.10.2009, learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304 IPC against the revisionist on 27.5.2010 and the said order is under challenge in criminal revision No. 2393 of 2010.

2. Since both the revisions arise out of same crime number and relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of together.

For the sake of convenience, criminal revision No. 2393 of 2010 has been taken as a leading case.

3. The facts are that on 15.1.2005, the complainant Ram Gopal Sharma-opposite party No. 2 lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar, which was registered at crime No. 12 of 2005 under Sections 269, 270, 273, 326, 308 IPC, State v. Dr. Girish Kumar and others alleging therein that his son Vishal Sharma was born on 15.8.1996, he remained continuously ill. On 10.7.2004, he was treated by Dr. Girish Kumar at ‘Child Care Centre’ for pneumonia. Dr. Girish Kumar transfused blood brought from the Blood Bank of Dr. Veena Agrawal. Subsequently, when no improvement was noticed in the condition of the child Vishal Sharma, aged about 8 years, he was referred to Chandigarh, where he was admitted at C.B.D. Hospital and was found to be HIV+. It was alleged that Dr. Veena Agrawal supplied contaminated blood, which was transfused by Dr. Girish Kumar. Earlier charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 269, 270, 273, 337, 326, 308 IPC, but subsequently after death of the child, a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 304 IPC was also filed. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, a prayer for discharge was made on behalf of the revisionist. The revisionist was discharged under other Sections, but learned trial Court framed charge under Section 304 IPC.

4. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

Sri Dilip Kumar submits that the revisionist Dr. Veena Agrawal is a highly educated Doctor having a degree of M.B.B.S., M.D. (Pathology) and is running a Pathology Lab and Blood Bank in the name and style of “Agrawal Pathology Clinic” at Muzaffar Nagar and she has the license to run the Blood Bank. Immediately after the registration of the F.I.R., the Blood Bank of the revisionist was sealed. Stock register, blood issuing register and blood donation register were also sealed and numerous samples of blood were also taken under directions of the C.M.O., but no HIV contamination was found in any of the samples. No blood was ever sold to the complainant.

6. It was further argued that as per the prosecution allegations, the blood was transfused on 12.7.2004 and the specimen of blood sample of the victim Vishal Sharma was sent to Chandigarh and tested by P.G.I., Chandigarh on 16.12.2004 wherein CD4 count was found to be 260 cells/µl. The contention is that as per the 7th Edition of “Pathologic Basis of Disease” by Kumar-Abbas-Fausto and 17th Edition of “Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine”, the CD4 cell count use to be 1000-1100 cells/µl in healthy blood. This count is almost depleted within 12 weeks and as the regenerative system starts working again, the CD4 cell count gradually increases, but it takes about 3 to 5 years to reach the CD4 cell count to 260. Since the blood, allegedly purchased from the revisionist, was transfused in July 2004, this blood could not have been the cause of