Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1514 (PAT)

Srinath Prasad v. State of Bihar

2011-07-21

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appealing on behalf of the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.12.2006 passed in Barharia PS Case No. 112 of 2006 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 16 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt practices Act, 1983. 3. Section 16 of the Act reads as follows: 16. Punishment for neglecting patients, etc.- Whoever, being a Medical Officer. compounder, dresser or nurse on duty abstains from duty without reasonable cause and without due intimation to the authority, or neglects the patients under his charge or does not deliberately issue requisition for the proper medicines and diets to be supplied to the patient by the Hospital or Relief Centre, or where there is permission for private practice indulges in private practice during the duty hours shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. 4. The prosecution case is that a dead body was brought to the Primary Health Centre. The doctor was not present at the Centre and as such, this case has been instituted. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that Section 16 would not be applicable in this case as the patient did not die due to neglect on behalf of the petitioner. The patient was brought dead to the hospital. It is further submitted that the petitioner was very much in the premises but due to the fact that mob that had gathered at the hospital, was very violent, he could not face the mob and, therefore, he has been declared to be absent. This aspect of the matter is a defence raised by the petitioner. 5. It is true that he could not be held responsible for the death of the patient concerned nor could it be said that it was due to neglect that the patient had died. This aspect of the matter is a defence raised by the petitioner. 5. It is true that he could not be held responsible for the death of the patient concerned nor could it be said that it was due to neglect that the patient had died. Therefore, what comes out of this entire case is the fact that the petitioner would be held responsible for dereliction of duty because he was absent as per the First Information Report, Scope of Section 16 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt practices Act, 1983 envisages that a Medical Officer, Compounder, Dresser or Nurse who abstains from duty without reasonable cause and without due intimation to the authority or neglects the patient under his charge or does not deliberately issue requisition of proper medicines etc. in the hospital or relief centre would be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both. In the present case, the allegation is of absence. There is no neglect of the patient inasmuch as the patient in this case was brought dead. It would be open for the petitioner to show to the Court that there was proper cause for his being absence or that in fact he was not present, but at this stage. these aspects cannot be argued or proven by the petitioner. 6. In the circumstances. I find no reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance. This application is dismissed. Application dismissed.