ISMAT SARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the report and findings of the Magisterial Inquiry held by the District Magistrate, Bangalore, in pursuance of the Government letter No. HD 112 SPD 77 dated 28-5-77 into the cause of death of one Sri Syed Abdul Salam, are sought to be challenged.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of late Syed Abdul Salam, residing at No. 9/2A, Lalbag Road, Bangalore. The deceased-Salam, who was aged about 43 years at the time of his death, is said to have been an active worker of Jamait-e-Islami Organisation. He was first arrested on 4-7-75 in connection with an offence under Defence of India Rules, and enlarged on bail on 21-7-75. Though, the criminal case against him under the Defence of India Rules ended in acquittal on 29-12-1975, but before that on 12-11-1975, he was again taken into custody under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under the orders of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police under sub-clause (2) of Clause A of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, he was detained in Central Jail, Bangalore. The said order of detentionwas confirmed by the Government by order No. HD 664 SPD 75 dated 27-11-1975. He was a chronic patient suffering from Duodenal Ulcer. He developed heart trouble around about January, 1976; while under detention in the Central Prison, he started complaining (of) pain in chest though he repeatedly requested and made applications for his release on parol to enable him to take treatment outside, but they were not considered. The deceased-Salam often complained before the co-detenus that the Doctors were treating him for chest pain with indifference. On 31-8-76 on his again complaining the chest pain, Dr. Hande of the Medical Board of Bowring Hospital examined him and advised examination by Cardiologist of the Bowring Hospital. On 2-9-1976, on the advise of the Medical Board, he was sent to the Hospital for admission. He was taken to the Hospital but was sent back on the ground that no bed was available for him. He, however, was admitted to the Bowring Hospital on 3-9-1976. His condition went on worsening. On 18-9-76, when his condition became serious, the Government, it appears, revoked the order of detention, but before communication of the said order (which was received by the Asst. Superintendent of the Central Jail at 5-45 p.m.), he however, died on the same day at about 5-15 p.m. in the Hospital. It appears there was lot of protest by the co-detenus in the Jail as also the relatives of the deceased and the Public that the deceased-Salam was a victim of negligence of both, the Jail authorities and Doctors of Bowring Hospital. Therefore, yeilding to public pressure, the Government thought fit to hold a Magisterial Inquiry into the cause of death. Accordingly, under letter No. HD 112 SPD 77 dated 28-5-77, the District Magistrate, Bangalore, was directed to hold an inquiry. After stating the circumstances leading to the detention and admission of the deceased Salam for treatment in the Bowring Hospital and his death, while under treatment in the hospital, the letter which was signed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department (police), read as follows :

(3.) Sri. S. V. Jagannath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not seek to dispute the correctness of the conclusion reached by the District Magistrate that there was no foul-play or crime committed resulting in the death of the deceased Salam, but the deceased-Salam died a natural death of Myocardial infraction. He, however, contended that the conclusions reached by the District Magistrate that there was no evidence of wanton negligence in the treatment given to the deceased-Salam either in the jail or in the Hospital and the observation that it was beyond his competence to go into the question of allegation regarding the expectation of money for giving special attention to the treatment of the deceased-Salam by a particular Doctor and the failure to give the essential drugs as mentioned earlier was not correct. On the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, it was obligatory on the District Magistrate to record the findings and the findings as recorded by the District Magistrate being erroneous, deserved to be set aside.