Judgment : Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012. The appellant is not a party to this writ petition. Therefore, she has preferred this writ appeal with the leave of this Court. 2. Heard Sri.Manoj R. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Dr.S.Gopakumaran Nair, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 5. 3. The appellant's daughter Megha, aged 10, was admitted to Christian Mission Hospital, Pandalam (for short, the Hospital) with abdominal pain and vomiting. She was attended by the 1st respondent, a Pediatrician, and the 2nd respondent, the Resident Medical Officer, of that hospital. She was administered certain medicines. On seeing signs of discomfort, she was given an injection allegedly without administering test dose. Soon the child began to show signs of discomfort. She was again administered certain drugs including antibiotics. At 8.30 p.m. on that day, the child had oral and nasal bleeding. She was shifted to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam at 12.45 a.m. on the next day. The child expired at 9.50 p.m. on 5.8.2010 while undergoing treatment there. 4. The appellant preferred Ext.P1 complaint before the Pandalam Police in respect of the matter. Based on Ext.P1, F.I.R.No.808 of 2010 of Pandalam Police Station has been registered for the offences under Sections 336 and 337 of IPC. The 5th respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoor, has taken over the investigation of the case. As per the instructions issued by the Government of Kerala in its Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008, after registration of a case against doctors in Government service and private sector for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police should immediately refer the case to an Expert Panel. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer in this case referred the matter to the Expert Panel. The Expert Panel, after examining the matter, prepared Ext.P6 Report on 18.1.2011. It is noted in Ext.P6 that the cause of death has been stated as choking in the Post-mortem Report. A gauze was found blocking pharynx and upper part of trachea along with blood clots blocking air passages. The opinions of the Expert Panel noted in Ext.P6 are as follows: “1. Medical record keeping appeared improper. 2. It is noted in Ext.P6 that the cause of death has been stated as choking in the Post-mortem Report. A gauze was found blocking pharynx and upper part of trachea along with blood clots blocking air passages. The opinions of the Expert Panel noted in Ext.P6 are as follows: “1. Medical record keeping appeared improper. 2. Tampering could be observed in the case record given for perusal. 3. Reasonable care had not been found exercised in administering intravenous drugs given at 2.20 PM on 02.08.2010. 4. The source of the gauze in the pharynx and trachea seen during postmortem could not be traced from the case sheet. 5. There was no evidence of injection mark suggestive of a test dose as per the postmortem findings. 6. The attending doctors and nursing staff who had administered the injection are liable in this case.” The Investigating Officer, after considering the views of the Expert Panel and completing the investigation, filed Ext.P2 Final Report against the respondents 1 and 2 and 3 members of staff of the Hospital before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondents 1 and 2 are the accused 1 and 5 respectively in the Final Report. The learned Magistrate took the Final Report on his file as C.C. No.720 of 2011. 5. Dr.T.G.Varghese, the Superintendent of the Hospital has preferred an appeal challenging Ext.P6 Report before the Apex Body prescribed in the said Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008. The appellant has filed W.P.(C) No.5017 of 2012 before this Court for declaring that Dr.T.G. Varghese, who is not an accused in the Final Report or in the First Information Report, was incompetent to file that appeal against Ext.P6 Report before the Apex Body and for other reliefs. The plea raised by the appellant in that writ petition was that Dr.T.G.Varghese was not an affected doctor as per the said Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008 issued by the Government and hence, the appeal preferred by him under that Circular was not maintainable. The learned Government Pleader maintained in that writ petition that the opinions 1 and 2 of the Expert Panel in Ext.P6 Report would affect the Hospital establishment of which Dr.T.G.Varghese was the Medical Superintendent. The learned Government Pleader maintained in that writ petition that the opinions 1 and 2 of the Expert Panel in Ext.P6 Report would affect the Hospital establishment of which Dr.T.G.Varghese was the Medical Superintendent. Therefore, this Court was of the view that Dr.T.G. Varghese was entitled to assail opinions 1 and 2 and the appellant herein cannot have any grievance on that aspect and the appeal preferred by Dr.T.G. Varghese before the Apex Body was found to be maintainable as regards opinions 1 and 2. Also found that there was nothing on record to show that the Apex Body would go into the matters not affecting the right of Dr.T.G.Varghese. Accordingly, that writ petition has been disposed of with liberty to the appellant herein to defend the appeal proceedings and with a direction to the Apex Body to confine the appeal to opinions 1 and 2 in Ext.P6 Report. Ext.P7 is the judgment rendered by this Court in that writ petition. In view of the findings and the directions issued in Ext.P7 judgment, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012 before this Court challenging Ext.P6 Report and for other reliefs. That writ petition has also been disposed of by the same learned Single Judge by judgment dated 10.4.2012. In the judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Ext.P6 Report was an appealable one and the appeal would lie before the Apex Body to be constituted under the Circular Memorandum and granted liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to prefer an appeal before the Apex Body. Accordingly, a direction has been issued to the 3rd respondent herein to constitute the Apex Body as provided in the Circular Memorandum and to hear the appeal which will be preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were granted liberty to canvass all their arguments before the Apex Body irrespective of the observations made in Ext.P7 judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012, the appellant herein has preferred this writ appeal with the leave of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012 preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 was a belated one and hence, should not have been entertained by this Court. Aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012, the appellant herein has preferred this writ appeal with the leave of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012 preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 was a belated one and hence, should not have been entertained by this Court. He further argued that in view of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P7 judgment restricting the consideration of the opinions 1 and 2 alone by the Apex Body, the liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 to prefer appeal before the Apex Body and to canvass all points by them before the Apex Body should not have been granted. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, as a matter of fact, there was no delay at all on their part in approaching this Court by filing the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 Report. In fact, they were not aware of the existence of such a Report till they received notice in O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (State Commission), preferred by the appellant herein claiming a compensation of Rs.50 lakh on account of the death of her child Megha from the respondents 1 and 2 herein and Dr.John Varghese, the Managing Partner, and Dr.T.G. Varghese, the Superintendent, of the Hospital. The respondents 1 and 2 asserted that they came to know about the existence of Ext.P6 Report only in the beginning of October, 2011 by filing a memo. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the Investigating Officer, the 5th respondent herein, filed Ext.P2 Final Report in the criminal case before the court, no summons was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 from that court till they preferred W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012. Normally, they can have access to Ext.P6 Report and connected records of the case only when they appear before that court and copies of the records are served on them as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. But, without waiting for the same, the respondents 1 and 2 obtained certified copy of Ext.P6 and connected records from that court. Normally, they can have access to Ext.P6 Report and connected records of the case only when they appear before that court and copies of the records are served on them as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. But, without waiting for the same, the respondents 1 and 2 obtained certified copy of Ext.P6 and connected records from that court. Thereafter, Dr.T.G. Varghese, the Superintendent of the Hospital, immediately preferred an appeal against Ext.P6 Report of the Expert Panel before the Apex Body challenging all the adverse findings affecting the Hospital and the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Challenging that appeal preferred by Dr.T.G.Varghese, the appellant herein preferred W.P.(C)No.5017 of 2012 for declaring that the appeal so preferred by Dr.T.G.Varghese was an incompetent one as he was not made an accused in the Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court or in the F.I.R. This Court has disposed of that writ petition by Ext.P7 judgment dated 29.2.2012 directing the Apex Body to confine the appeal to opinions 1 and 2 alone in Ext.P6 Report of the Expert Panel. The appellant herein has not made the respondents 1 and 2 herein as parties to that writ petition. Hence, they did not get an opportunity to apprise this Court the true facts before passing Ext.P7 judgment. In view of the direction for confining the appeal to opinions 1 and 2 alone, the respondents 1 and 2 herein were compelled to challenge Ext.P6 Report before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012. While considering that writ petition, the learned Single Judge found that Ext.P6 Report was an appealable one and the appeal would lie before the Apex Body prescribed under the Circular Memorandum and granted liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to prefer an appeal before that Apex Body and directed the 3rd respondent herein to constitute the Apex Body and hear the appeal preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 by that Body. This Court has also granted liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to canvass all their arguments before the Apex Body irrespective of the observations in Ext.P7 judgment. When all these facts are considered, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were liable to be rejected, contended the learned counsel. This Court has also granted liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to canvass all their arguments before the Apex Body irrespective of the observations in Ext.P7 judgment. When all these facts are considered, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were liable to be rejected, contended the learned counsel. In view of the facts highlighted, we find much force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 countering the contentions of the appellant. Therefore, we reject those contentions. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, has filed Final Report before the court against the respondents 1 and 2 and three members of staff of the Hospital. Therefore, there is no meaning in agitating the matter by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Apex Body in order to reverse the findings entered by the Expert Panel in Ext.P6 Report. The provision for an appeal and the constitution of an Apex Body provided under the Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008 were illegal and cannot be accepted or acted upon in the light of the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab ( AIR 2005 SC 3180 ). Before considering and answering these arguments, it will be advantageous to go through various Circular Memoranda containing executive instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of Kerala in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors in Government as well as private sectors for their acts of commission or omission in the medical care of patients. 8. The Government of Kerala had issued Circular Memorandum No.49882/SSA2/84/Home dated 20.8.1984 containing executive instructions and guidelines to police officers in regard to investigation of complaints against Doctors in Government service for their acts of commission or omission in the medical care of a patient in Government hospitals and dispensaries which read as follows: The Police officers shall observe the following guidelines while investigating complaints against Doctors in Government services. (1) Any investigation into complaints to Police against doctors in Government service, for acts of commission or omission in the course of medical care of a patient in Government hospitals and dispensaries, shall be done only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (1) Any investigation into complaints to Police against doctors in Government service, for acts of commission or omission in the course of medical care of a patient in Government hospitals and dispensaries, shall be done only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (2) The Investigating Officer shall as soon as he receives a complaint, bring it to the notice of the Director General of Police. The Investigating Officer will consult the Principal of any Medical College in the State or the Professor of the relevant speciality in pursuing his investigation. Further instructions in the matter had been issued by the Government by Circular Memorandum No.58077/SSA2/84/Home dated 18.9.1985 which read as follows: (1) After registration of any case against a Doctor for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will place the case before the Superintendent of Police and District Medical Officer. He will continue further investigation in the light of decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer for further action in the case. (2) In case the views of Superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer the Superintendent of Police and District Medical Officer will refer the issue for the opinion of the appropriate specialist Doctor and further action will be on the basis of advice of such specialist. In modification of the instructions issued in the said Circular Memorandum dated 18.9.1985, the Government had issued further instructions in Circular Memorandum No.49896/SSA2/86/Home dated 29.10.1986 which read as follows: (1) After registration of any case against a Doctor for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will place the case before the Superintendent of Police and District Medical Officer or Principal, Medical College as the case may be. He will continue further investigation in the light of decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College for further action in the case. (2) In case the views of superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College, they will refer the issue for the opinion of the Director of Health Services/Director of Medical Education as the case may be and further action will be taken on the basis of his advice. (2) In case the views of superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College, they will refer the issue for the opinion of the Director of Health Services/Director of Medical Education as the case may be and further action will be taken on the basis of his advice. The Government had issued further instructions in the matter as per Circular Memorandum No.6538/SSB4/87/Home dated 31.10.1989 which read as follows: (1) After registration of any case against a Doctor for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will refer the case to a panel consisting of the Superintendent of Police (or Commissioner of Police), District Medical Officer, or Principal, Medical College as the case may be. He will continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College for further action in the case. (2) In case the views of Superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College, they will refer the issue for the opinion to a higher level panel consisting of Director of Health Services, who will also be the Convenor, Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance), Director of Medical Education, Director General of Police, and Director of Public Prosecution. The panel can take expert opinion from the Professor of the concerned speciality and such other experts before arriving at a definite conclusion. 9. A writ petition, O.P.No.6233 of 1990, had been filed before this Court by a doctor, who was practising in the private sector, for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to the State of Kerala to extend the benefits of the said Circular Memoranda dated 29.10.1986 and 31.10.1989 to the private medical practitioners and for other reliefs. These two Circulars had been issued by the Government in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors in Government service. Therefore, finding that the prayer to extend the benefits under those Circulars to a class outside it cannot be granted as there was no legally enforceable right in the petitioner in that behalf and for other reasons given in the judgment, this Court dismissed that writ petition with certain observations. Therefore, finding that the prayer to extend the benefits under those Circulars to a class outside it cannot be granted as there was no legally enforceable right in the petitioner in that behalf and for other reasons given in the judgment, this Court dismissed that writ petition with certain observations. This Court observed that if the said Circulars were a protection intended for medical practitioner, Government must consider whether a distinction can be made in this context, between a private medical practitioner and those in the service of the Government. The Indian Medical Association had also demanded for prescribing guidelines in regard to investigation of complaints by police against doctors in priviate hospitals. In these circumstances, the Government had examined the matter in detail and issued Circular Memorandum No.73231/SSB4/92/Home dated 20.9.1993 containing the following instructions: (i) After registration of any case against a Private Medical Practitioner or a doctor in a private hospital for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will immediately refer the case to a panel consisting of the Superintendent of Police, Commissioner of Police, District Medical Officer or Principal, Medical College as the case may be. He will continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the panel. (ii) In case the views of the Superintendent of Police differ from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College they will immediately refer the issue for the opinion of an Apex Body consisting of Director of Health Services (M & PH), the Director of Medical Education, Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance), the Director General of Prosecution and the Director General of Police. The Director of Health Services who will be the Convenor of the Apex Panel can, depending on the circumstances, get expert opinion from specialists in the private sector also. The affected private doctors are also free to approach the Apex Body with appeals. In continuation of the instructions issued in the Circular Memorandum dated 31.10.1989 and modifying the same, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum No.73231/SSB4/92/Home dated 22.9.1993 ordering that the Government Medical Officers can approach the Apex Body in appeal if the decision of the District Panel is not acceptable to them. 10. In continuation of the instructions issued in the Circular Memorandum dated 31.10.1989 and modifying the same, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum No.73231/SSB4/92/Home dated 22.9.1993 ordering that the Government Medical Officers can approach the Apex Body in appeal if the decision of the District Panel is not acceptable to them. 10. The Government, after examining the Executive Directive No.7/02 dated 22.4.2002 issued by the Director General of Police ordering that the procedure contained in the Government Circulars in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors would be discontinued forthwith, had issued Circular Memorandum No.41801/SSB3/2000/Home dated 7.12.2002 cancelling the said Executive Directive No.7/02 of the Director General of Police as it was legally unsound and invalid. In this Circular, the Government affirmed that the Circulars dated 31.10.1989, 20.9.1993 and 22.9.1993 were legally sound and valid and the instructions issued in them would be continued until further orders from the Government. The Director General of Police had subsequently requested the Government to exempt the police officials from the Panel/Apex Body constituted as per the Government Circulars. After examining the matter, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum No.41801/SSB3/2000/Home dated 17.1.2004 containing the following further instructions in the matter: 1. After registration of any case against Doctors in Government Service, Private Medical practitioner or Doctors in Private Hospitals for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will immediately refer the case to an Expert Panel consisting of the following three members. (i) The District Medical Officer of Health (Convenor) (ii) District Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor (iii) Forensic expert from the nearest Medical College, as follows: Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram – For Thiruvanathapuram and Kollam Districts, Medical College, Alappuzha - For Alappuzha and Ernakulam Districts, Medical College, Kottayam - For Idukki, Kottayam & Pathanamthitta Districts, Medical College, Thrissur - For Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur Districts, Medical College, Kozhikode - For Kozhikode & Wayanad Districts, Medical College, Kannur - For Kannur and Kasargod Districts. It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider the views expressed by the Expert Panel. 2. In case the views of the members of the panel differ, they will immediately refer the issue for the opinion of the Apex Body consisting of the following four members. (i) The Director of Health Services (Convenor) (ii) The Director of Medical Education (iii) The Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance) (iv) The Director General of Prosecution. 2. In case the views of the members of the panel differ, they will immediately refer the issue for the opinion of the Apex Body consisting of the following four members. (i) The Director of Health Services (Convenor) (ii) The Director of Medical Education (iii) The Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance) (iv) The Director General of Prosecution. The Apex Body can, depending on circumstances, get expert opinion from Specialists in the private sector also. The affected Doctors are also free to approach the Apex Body with appeal. 3. The Expert Panel shall submit its views on the incident within a specified period of 30/60 days and this would be taken into account by the Investigating Officer. He will continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the panel. It would be open for the investigating officer to seek additional Experts opinion in case he is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Expert Panel or requires additional clarification. 4. The Panel/Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation by the Police. A meeting held by the Minister for Home, Vigilance and Tourism on 12.9.2006 with the officials of the Home Department and the representatives of the Indian Medical Association had decided to include one more member in the Expert Panel constituted as per the said Circular dated 17.1.2004. Accordingly, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum No.54608/SSB3/2004/Home dated 18.12.2006 with the following modifications to Circular Memorandum dated 17.1.2004: After registration of any case against doctors in Government service, private medical practitioner or doctors in private hospitals for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will immediately refer the case to an expert panel consisting of the following four members. (i) The District Medical Officer of Health (Convenor) (ii) District Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor (iii) Senior Government doctor in the concerned speciality as nominated by the respective District Medical Officer (iv) Forensic expert from the nearest Medical College as follows: Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram – for Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam districts, Medical College, Alappuzha - for Alappuzha and Ernakulam districts, Medical College, Kottayam - for Idukki, Kottayam and Pathanamthitta districts, Medical College, Thrissur - for Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur districts, Medical College, Kozhikode - for Kozhikode and Wayanad districts, Medical College, Kannur - for Kannur and Kasargode districts. It shall be the duty of the investigating officer to consider the views expressed by the expert panel. The other clauses of the Circular Memorandum remain unchanged. Subsequently, in supersession of all previous instructions issued in the matter, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum No.73304/SSB3/2007/Home dated 16.6.2008 containing the following instructions in the matter: 1. After registration of any case against doctors in Government service, private medical practitioners or doctors in private hospitals for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police will immediately refer the case to an expert panel consisting of the following four members: (i) The District Medical Officer of Health (Convenor) (ii) District Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor (iii) Senior Government doctor in the concerned speciality as nominated by the respective District Medical Officer. (iv) Forensic expert from the nearest Medical College, as follows: Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram – for Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam districts. Medical College, Alappuzha - for Alappuzha and Ernakulam districts. Medical College, Kottayam - for Idukki, Kottayam and Pathanamthitta districts. Medical College, Thrissur - for Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur districts. Medical College, Kozhikode - for Kozhikode and Wayanad districts. Medical College, Kannur - for Kannur and Kasargode districts. 2. In case the views of the members of the expert panel differ, they will immediately refer the issue for the opinion of the Apex Body consisting of the following four members: (i) The Director of Health Services (Convenor). (ii) The Director of Medical Education. (iii) The Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance). (iv) The Director General of Prosecution. The Apex Body can, depending on circumstances, get expert opinion from specialists in the private sector also. The affected doctors are also free to approach the Apex body with appeal. 3. The Expert Panel/Apex body shall submit its views on the incident within a specified period of 30 days. It shall be the duty of the investigating officer to consider the views expressed by the Expert Panel/Apex Body and he will continue further investigation in the light of the view taken by the Expert panel/Apex body. In case the investigating officer is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Expert Panel/Apex Body or requires additional clarification, it would be open to him to seek additional expert opinion. 4. The Expert Panel/Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of any case by the Police. In case the investigating officer is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Expert Panel/Apex Body or requires additional clarification, it would be open to him to seek additional expert opinion. 4. The Expert Panel/Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of any case by the Police. The Government had further issued Circular Memorandum No.73304/SSB3/2007/Home dated 8.8.2008 to the effect that 'Medical College Kannur' noted in Circular dated 16.6.2008 to be read as 'Academy of Co-operative Medical Education, Pariyaram, Kannur'. Therefore, as of now, the Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008 as modified by the Circular Memorandum dated 8.8.2008 containing the executive instructions is existing in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors in Government and private sectors for their acts of commission or omission in the medical care of patients. 11. The deceased Megha in this case died on 5.8.2010. Therefore, the relevant Circular Memorandum containing the executive instructions in regard to investigation against doctors for their acts of commission or omission in the medical care of patient is the one issued by the Government on 16.6.2008. This Circular Memorandum had been issued in supersession of all the previous instructions issued in the matter. As per this Circular, the investigation of a case against doctors in Government and private sectors for criminal negligence has to be conducted by a Deputy superintendent of Police. After registration of the case, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police has to immediately refer the case to an Expert Panel constituted under this Circular. The Expert Panel has to consider the matter and should submit its views on the incident. It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider the views expressed by the Expert Panel and he has to continue further investigation in the light of the views thus taken by the Expert Panel. If the Investigating Officer is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Expert Panel or he requires additional clarification, it would be open to him to seek additional expert opinion. It is also instructed in this Circular that the Expert Panel should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of the case. In this case, as provided in the Circular, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police had referred the case to the Expert Panel. It is also instructed in this Circular that the Expert Panel should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of the case. In this case, as provided in the Circular, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police had referred the case to the Expert Panel. The Expert Panel, after considering the matter on 18.1.2011, issued Ext.P6 Report containing its opinions. The investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police has accepted the opinions contained in Ext.P6 Report and continued further investigation on that basis and submitted Ext.P2 Final Report in the court against five accused, including respondents 1 and 2, alleging the offence under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. 12. It is provided in the Circular Memorandum dated 16.6.2008 that in case the views of the members of the Expert Panel differ, they should immediately refer the issue for the opinion of the Apex Body constituted under that Circular. The Apex Body can, depending on circumstances, seek expert opinion from specialists in the Government sector or in the private sector or both. The Apex Body has to consider the matter and should submit its views on the incident. It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider the views expressed by the Apex Body and he has to continue further investigation in the light of the views thus taken by the Apex Body. If the Investigating Officer is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Apex Body or he requires additional clarification, it would be open to him to seek additional expert opinion. It is also instructed in this Circular that the Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of the case. It is also specifically provided in this Circular that the affected doctors are free to approach the Apex Body with appeal. In the judgments in W.P.(C) No.5017 of 2012 (Ext.P7) and in W.P.(C) No.6921 of 2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court recognised the right to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Expert Panel to the Apex Body provided in the Circular. The appellant has not chosen to file any appeal against Ext.P7 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, Ext.P7 has become final. The appellant has not chosen to file any appeal against Ext.P7 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, Ext.P7 has become final. The appellant does not challenge the provisions made in the Circular Memorandum containing executive instructions providing for referring the case against the doctors to an Expert Panel and providing for an appeal from the decision of the Expert Panel to the Apex Body. In this case, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed Ext.P2 Final Report indicting the respondents 1 and 2 herein and three others incorporating the offence under Section 304A of IPC accepting the opinions expressed by the Expert Panel in Ext.P6 Report and after completing the investigation on that basis. The appellant takes shelter under Ext.P6 Report of the Expert Panel and supports Ext.P2 Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer. Her complaint is only against the appeal preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Apex Body. For that purpose, she also relies on the ruling of the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew's case. 13. We shall consider the matter in detail. We have already referred to 11 Circular Memoranda issued by the Government from 20.8.1984 to 8.8.2008 in regard to investigation of cases against doctors for criminal negligence (no other Circular, in respect of the matter, has been brought to our notice). Challenging the Circular Memoranda dated 20.8.1984, 18.9.1985, 29.10.1986 and 31.10.1989 and for quashing them and for investigating a crime registered alleging criminal negligence on the part of doctor and other members of staff of a hospital in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and without reference to the said four Circulars, O.P.No.6349 of 1991 was filed before this Court. The said four Circulars were marked as Exts.P4 to P7 in that writ petition. It was a case where the wife of the petitioner therein died soon after an operation for tonsillitis. The petitioner therein wanted to quash Ext.P4 to P7 on the ground that they were illegal and beyond the powers of the Government as they amount to interference with the powers of the investigation conferred under various provisions of Cr.P.C. In the judgment rendered in that writ petition, Padmanabhan, J. observed that in that case His Lordship was not satisfied that any administrative instruction overriding any of the powers conferred on the Investigating Officer by the Code was given by the Government. It was further observed in that judgment as follows: “In order to fix a professional man with criminal negligence for what he has done in the discharge of his profession, there must be proof of culpable negligence. In order to arrive at the question of culpable negligence, If the Government has given certain directions and guidelines, that cannot amount to interference with the statutory powers of investigation under the Code.......” Finding that the investigation of the case was still in progress and there was no scope for interference as prayed for, that writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner therein preferred W.A.No.994 of 1991 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J. and T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. considered that writ appeal and dismissed the same as there was no merit in it. Their Lordships observed that it was not possible to hold that the Circulars would hamper the investigation. 14. In the Circular Memorandum dated 18.9.1985, it was directed that after registration of a case against a doctor for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police should place the case before the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer for further action in the case and he would continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer. It was also directed in the Circular that in case the views of the Superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer, the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer should refer the issue for the opinion of an appropriate specialist doctor and further action will be on the basis of the advice of that specialist. In the Circular Memorandum dated 29.10.1986, it was directed that after registration of a case against a doctor for criminal negligence the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police should place the case before the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College, as the case may be. He would continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College, for further action in the case. He would continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College, for further action in the case. It was also directed that in case the views of the Superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College, they should refer the issue for the opinion of a higher level panel consisting of the Director of Health Services/Director of Medical Education as the case may be and further action would be taken on the basis of his advice. In the Circular Memorandum dated 31.10.1989, it was directed that after registration of a case against a doctor for criminal negligence, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police should refer the case to a panel consisting of the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police, the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College, as the case may be. He would continue further investigation in the light of the decision jointly taken by the Superintendent of Police and the District Medical Officer or the Principal, Medical College, for further action in the case. It was also directed that in case the views of the Superintendent of Police are different from those of the District Medical Officer/Principal, Medical College, they should refer the issue for the opinion of a higher level panel consisting of the Director of Health Services, who will also be the Convenor, Additional Director of Health Services (Vigilance), Director of Medical Education, Director General of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was also provided that the higher level panel can take expert opinion from the Professor of the concerned speciality and from such other experts before arriving at a definite conclusion. Therefore, it can easily be seen from these Circulars that a mechanism involving higher authorities has been provided for a second consideration of the matter in case the views of the members of the panel first considering the issue differ. The challenge against such Circulars has been rejected by this Court. 15. Crl.M.C.No.2995 of 2011 was filed before this Court by an Assistant Surgeon in the Government service for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. The challenge against such Circulars has been rejected by this Court. 15. Crl.M.C.No.2995 of 2011 was filed before this Court by an Assistant Surgeon in the Government service for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. It was a case where the petitioner had attended the delivery of a lady on 9.6.2001. Due to certain complications developed, that lady died on the next day. A complaint was lodged alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner. After conducting investigation, Final Report had been filed against the petitioner alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. In that case, the Expert Panel in their Report attributed negligence on the part of the petitioner. An appeal had been preferred against that Report before the Apex Body. The Apex Body, after considering that appeal, found that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. In the light of the final opinion thus given by the Apex Body, this Court found that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and, as such, no prosecution can be had against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner had been quashed. 16. Crl.M.C.No.3404 of 2011 had been filed by a Gynaecologist for quashing the proceedings pending against her in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. It was a case where a lady aged 23 and her child in the womb died on 3.5.2006 allegedly due to the culpable negligence on the part of the petitioner. In that case, the Expert Panel was of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Apex Body. The Apex Body was of the view that there cannot be found any wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner. Accepting the opinion thus expressed by the Apex Body and following certain judicial pronouncements, this Court found that there were no sufficient materials for proceeding with the trial of the case and hence, quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. 17. Crl.M.C.No.3263 of 2011 had been filed by an Assistant Surgeon for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. 17. Crl.M.C.No.3263 of 2011 had been filed by an Assistant Surgeon for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court alleging the commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. The Expert Panel entered findings against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal against those findings before the Apex Body. The Apex Body found that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. In the light of the findings entered by the Apex Body, this Court found that it was not possible to hold that the petitioner was negligent so as to prosecute him for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and quashed the proceedings against him. 18. Crl.M.C.No.1259 of 2007 had been filed by three doctors and a nurse for quashing a criminal complaint alleging the commission of offences under Sections 120B, 304 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was a case where the wife of the first respondent therein died on 24.5.1996 allegedly due to the culpable medical negligence on the part of the petitioners therein. A crime had been registered by the concerned Police under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and, subsequently, investigated the same after incorporating the offences under Sections 120B, 304A, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. The case had been referred to the Expert Panel. The Expert Panel found medical negligence on the part of the petitioners. The investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police accepted the findings of the Expert Panel and continued the investigation on that basis and submitted Final Report before the court alleging the offences under Sections 120B, 304A, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. This Court by order dated 31.3.2005 in Crl.M.C. Nos.1138 and 3682 of 2001 filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint preferred by the first respondent therein (who is the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1259 of 2007) and for quashing the Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer, directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation in the case after getting a report from the Apex Body. The Apex Body considered the matter and negatived the findings of the Expert Panel. They found that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctors. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed further report requesting the court to drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate accepted that report and dropped the proceedings. The Apex Body considered the matter and negatived the findings of the Expert Panel. They found that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctors. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed further report requesting the court to drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate accepted that report and dropped the proceedings. In the light of the findings of the Apex Body as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew's case, this Court found that for securing the ends of justice the proceedings in the complaint preferred by the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1259 of 2007 pending against the petitioners therein was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, it was quashed by order dated 29.10.2010 in that Crl.M.C. This order had been challenged by the first respondent therein before the Honourable Supreme Court by filing SLP(Crl) No.80 of 2011. The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed that SLP by order dated 12.7.2012. 19. The Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately considered the question of medical negligence in detail including the cases attracting the penal provisions in Jacob Mathew's case (supra) and, inter alia, observed and laid down as follows: “53. Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been leveled against him). A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been leveled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.” Therefore, statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India governing the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. Till such statutory rules or executive instructions are issued, the guidelines so issued by the Apex Court should be followed. The Government of Kerala had issued executive instructions and guidelines to police officers in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors in Government service for their acts of commission or omission in the medical care of patients by way of a Circular Memorandum in 1984 for the first time. Subsequently, the Government had issued a few more Circulars modifying the executive instructions and guidelines. The Government had issued Circular Memorandum dated 20.9.1993 incorporating, for the first time, executive instructions and guidelines similar to that of the executive instructions and guidelines applicable to doctors in Government sector in respect of investigation of complaints against doctors in private sector. Subsequently also, the Government had issued certain Circulars in regard to investigation of complaints against doctors both in Government and private sectors. 20. A provision for filing appeal by the affected doctors to the Apex Body from the decision of the Expert Panel had been made for the first time by the Circular Memorandum dated 20.9.1993. This Circular is applicable only to the doctors in the private sector. Presumably for bridging that lacuna in respect of the doctors in the Government sector, the Government had issued Circular Memorandum dated 22.9.1993 in continuation of the instructions issued in the Circular Memorandum dated 31.10.1989 and modifying the same by making a provision for the doctors in the Government sector to file appeal to the Apex Body from the decision of the Expert Panel. The judgment in Jacob Mathew's case had been pronounced on 5.8.2005. The Circulars dated 18.12.2006 and 16.6.2008 had been issued thereafter. The judgment in Jacob Mathew's case had been pronounced on 5.8.2005. The Circulars dated 18.12.2006 and 16.6.2008 had been issued thereafter. The Circular dated 16.6.2008, applicable to doctors both in Government and private sectors, had been issued in supersession of all previous instructions issued by the Government in the matter. But, neither in the Circular dated 18.12.2006 nor in the Circular dated 16.6.2008 made any mention about the judgment of the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew's case. Therefore, it is not discernible from these two Circulars as to whether the Government had considered the directions issued by the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew's case while issuing them. 21. It is true that the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court do not provide for filing appeal by the affected doctors as provided for in the Circulars issued by the Government of Kerala. It is also true that the Apex Court has not prohibited such a provision for filing appeal by the affected doctors. In Jacob Mathew's case, we notice the reasons stated by the Apex Court for issuing the guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. Their Lordships observed: “51. As we have noticed hereinabove that the cases of doctors (surgeons and physicians) being subjected to criminal prosecution are on an increase. Sometimes such prosecutions are filed by private complainants and sometimes by police on an FIR being lodged and cognizance taken. The investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304A of IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment. He has to seek bail to escape arrest, which may or may not be granted to him. At the end he may be exonerated by acquittal or discharge but the loss which he has suffered in his reputation cannot be compensated by any standards.” The Apex Court emphasized the need for care and caution in the interest of society for the service which the medical profession renders to human beings and for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefers recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against. It was also made clear that Their Lordships may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. 22. The Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case directed that a doctor accused of rashness or negligence may not be arrested in a routine manner simply because a charge has been levelled against him. Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld, it was further directed. Reiterating the directions so issued, the Apex Court in Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq ( AIR 2009 SC 2049 ) further warned the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew's case, otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action. 23. We have already noted the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court issued the guidelines on 5.8.2005. The necessity of conducting investigation of complaints against doctors in Government service by a senior Police officer was felt as early as in 1984 and, accordingly, the Government of Kerala had issued Circular Memorandum dated 20.8.1984 directing that the investigation into the complaints against doctors in Government service for their acts of commission or omission in the course of medical care of a patient in Government hospitals and dispensaries shall be conducted only by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was also felt necessary to bring such complaints against doctors received by the Investigating Officer to the notice of the Director General of Police and the necessity of consulting the Principal of any Medical College in the state or the Professor of relevant speciality by the Investigating Officer in pursuing his investigation and, accordingly, issued directions in that respect in the said Circular dated 20.8.1984. Subsequently, the Government had issued further instructions and guidelines in the matter of investigation against doctors both in Government and private sectors. Subsequently, the Government had issued further instructions and guidelines in the matter of investigation against doctors both in Government and private sectors. As we have already noted, the provisions for filing appeal by the affected doctors to the Apex Body from the decision of the Expert Panel had also been made by issuing Circulars dated 20.9.1993 and 22.9.1993. It is quite evident that the intention behind the Circulars so issued by the Government was to protect the doctors from being subjected to criminal prosecution without sufficient cause. The doctors' profession is a noble one. It is a healing profession. Their services to the society are invaluable. Indiscriminate and baseless prosecution of doctors can only be termed as harassment affecting the reputation of the individual doctor and the morale of the community of doctors. This will have its own adverse repercussions in the society. 24. An Investigating Officer may have been trained in many ways. But, he cannot be found to be a person possessing knowledge in medical science as a physician or a surgeon possesses. A complainant may raise complaints against doctors for various reasons. May be out of ignorance or for some good or bad reasons. In all such situations, the Investigating Officer should be equipped with sound knowledge so as to take a proper decision as to whether a criminal prosecution will lie or not against a doctor. This is possible with the aid of the views or opinions of Expert Panel consisting of persons including competent doctors or specialists from the relevant field. This is recognized by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case by issuing the direction that the Investigating Officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in Government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation (details of Bolam's test for finding out the existence or not of culpable negligence on the part of the doctors have been dealt with in Jacob Mathew's case). 25. The Expert Panel constituted under the Circular dated 16.6.2008, which was issued in supersession of all other Circulars, consists of members from different fields including medical profession. 25. The Expert Panel constituted under the Circular dated 16.6.2008, which was issued in supersession of all other Circulars, consists of members from different fields including medical profession. The chances of occurring differences in views among the members of the Expert Panel in respect of a case referred to them are not remote. Therefore, it is provided in the Circular that in case the views of the members of the Expert Panel differ, they should immediately refer the issue for the opinion of the Apex Body consisted of various authorities. A provision for filing appeal by the doctors is also included in the Circular. The opinions with regard to the handling of patients by physicians and surgeons may differ as usually happen. In such a circumstance, making a provision for second or further consideration by a higher body either by way of reference from the Expert Panel or by way of filing appeal by the affected doctors can only be upheld as a prudent practice for preventing probable mistakes and assuring correctness of opinions. Therefore, such a provision in the Circular for considering the issue by an Apex Body only reinforces the requirement of obtaining an independent and competent medical opinion by the Investigating Officer before proceeding against a doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission as directed in the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case. This is not at all going against the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, but only complementing and strengthening the same. As provided in the Circular, it shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider the views expressed by the Expert Panel/Apex Body and to continue further investigation in the light of the views taken by the Expert Panel/Apex Body. If he is not satisfied with the views expressed by the Expert Panel/Apex Body or requires additional clarification, it would be open to him to seek additional expert opinion. Moreover, it is directed in the Circular that the Expert Panel/Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of any case by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the criticism raised against the Circular issued by the Government in respect of investigation of cases against doctors cannot be countenanced. Moreover, it is directed in the Circular that the Expert Panel/Apex Body should not in any way interfere with or impede the smooth investigation of any case by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the criticism raised against the Circular issued by the Government in respect of investigation of cases against doctors cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the fact that the appellant has not chosen to challenge the provisions contained in the Circular or to file appeal against Ext.P7 judgment upholding the right to file appeal still remains. 26. At any rate, the Circular Memorandum cannot be found to contain executive instructions or guidelines fettering the powers of investigation conferred on the Investigating Officer under the Cr.P.C. In fact, the provisions in the Circular really enable the Investigating Officer to conduct proper investigation in a criminal case against doctors. They help the Investigating Officers from committing errors in their conclusions for want of required knowledge in the relevant field of medical science while investigating cases against doctors. Therefore, we uphold the executive instructions and guidelines contained in the Circular dated 16.6.2008 as modified by the circular dated 8.8.2008 issued by the Government in regard to investigation of cases against doctors as valid. 27. In the case on hand, on the strength of the directions contained in the impugned judgment, the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred appeal before the Apex Body challenging the findings in Ext.P6 Report of the Expert Panel as provided in the Circular. It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer to consider the views expressed by the Apex Body and to continue further investigation in the light of the views taken by the Apex Body. The Investigating Officer has already filed Final Report before the court under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. accepting the opinions expressed by the Expert Panel. If the Apex Body reverses the findings of Expert Panel, naturally, as provided in the Circular, that benefit should enure to the accused including the respondents 1 and 2. The Investigating Officer has already filed Final Report before the court under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. accepting the opinions expressed by the Expert Panel. If the Apex Body reverses the findings of Expert Panel, naturally, as provided in the Circular, that benefit should enure to the accused including the respondents 1 and 2. In that case, the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police is bound to continue further investigation in the light of the view thus taken by the Apex Body and to file further report before the court as provided under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Since the Circular provides for an appeal and such an appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, necessarily, the Investigating Officer in this case is bound to consider the views of the Apex Body and continue further investigation on that basis. If the views of the Apex Body turn out to be against the respondents 1 and 2 confirming the opinions of the Expert Panel, then the prosecution against them can be continued. If the Apex Body reverses the conclusions of the Expert Panel and finds no culpable negligence on the part of the accused, the Investigating Officer has to act as directed in the Circular. 28. For all the foregoing reasons, we reject the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.